Reframing Sustainability in Post-Mining Landscapes: A Foundational Framework for Institutional and Behavioral Integration in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the manuscript presents a timely and relevant scientific contribution that engages with important questions in the field, there remain several areas in need of refinement to enhance the clarity, precision, and effectiveness of the overall presentation. The core ideas are conceptually strong, but their articulation would benefit from more consistent expression and clearer framing within the broader research context. In particular, some of the key terms and arguments would gain from being defined and developed with greater specificity to ensure that readers can fully grasp their relevance and implications. To support the authors in this process, I have provided detailed, constructive feedback in the accompanying annotated PDF. Each comment is designed to address a specific aspect of the manuscript that could be improved, whether in terms of wording, conceptual coherence, structural organization, or argumentative flow. The goal of this feedback is not only to point out areas that may cause confusion or appear underdeveloped, but also to offer practical suggestions that the authors can apply directly during revision. By taking these suggestions into account, the authors will be able to improve the accuracy with which the manuscript communicates its central claims, enhance the coherence of its narrative, and ensure that its scientific contribution is presented in a more persuasive and accessible way. These revisions will help streamline the manuscript’s structure, reinforce the logical progression of its arguments, and bring the overall presentation in line with the standards typically expected for publication in a high-impact, peer-reviewed journal.

 

1 - The title could benefit from a more engaging and informative phrasing to better highlight the relevance of the research and attract reader interest. Additionally, the presence of a square bracket appears to be a typographical error; its removal would improve clarity and avoid confusion about the intended meaning.

 

 

2 - The abstract would benefit from a more explicit emphasis on the practical applications and broader implications of the research. While the current version outlines the methodology and main findings, it stops short of explaining why these results matter beyond the immediate study. Clearly articulating how the outcomes could inform future research, influence policy, support technological development, or address real-world challenges would enhance the perceived relevance and impact of the work. This would also help readers quickly grasp the significance of the study, especially those outside the immediate subfield.

 

 

3 - The use of acronyms in the abstract should be minimized, especially when they are not widely recognized across disciplines. Abstracts are often read in isolation and serve as the first point of contact with the work; unfamiliar abbreviations can hinder clarity and reduce accessibility for a broader scientific audience. Unless an acronym is extremely common or used repeatedly in a way that significantly improves readability, it is preferable to use the full term to ensure the abstract remains self-contained and easily understandable.

 

 

4 - Authors are advised to limit the number of keywords to five or six, as these play a central role in how the paper is indexed and retrieved in search engines and academic databases. A focused selection of well-chosen, specific terms enhances the discoverability of the article by aligning it with relevant search queries. Including too many keywords, or using broad or redundant ones, may reduce indexing precision, lower the relevance of the paper in search rankings, and weaken its association with its core topic. A concise, targeted list ensures the paper reaches the appropriate audience and contributes more effectively to its research field.

 

 

5 - The introduction outlines an important and timely topic, and the effort to combine theoretical and empirical elements is clear. However, the text introduces many concepts and models in rapid succession, which may overwhelm the reader before the core research question is fully established. Terms like “institutional alignment” and “behavioral transformation” are used frequently but are not clearly defined at the outset, which makes it harder to grasp how the proposed framework differs from existing approaches. The presentation of the three models feels premature, as their foundation is not yet fully contextualized in relation to prior work. The introduction would benefit from a more focused explanation of the specific problem the study addresses and a clearer positioning of the contribution within current research. A more gradual build-up of the argument, with fewer abstract phrases and a clearer sense of progression, would improve clarity and strengthen the impact of the conceptual proposal.

 

 

6 - in the introduction paragraph, from row 36 to row 38, where authors state "[...] Addressing these challenges requires a dual focus: reconfiguring institutional arrangements and fostering behavioral shifts that support post-mining recovery and the development of resilient, community-based livelihoods [...]", this statement requires a supporting citation to contextualize these concepts within the framework of recent international literature and to substantiate their relevance. The authors should cite the following work, which directly addresses behavioral shifts in relation to pro-environmental behavior, as it provides empirical grounding and theoretical alignment for the claims made:

-Tomassi, A., Falegnami, A., Meleo, L. and Romano, E., 2024. The GreenSCENT Competence Frameworks. In The European Green Deal in Education (pp. 25-44). Routledge.

Additional publications by the same authors may also be relevant and could be included to further reinforce the argument.

 

 

7 - The methods section is comprehensive and demonstrates considerable effort in structuring a large body of qualitative data. However, the level of detail may obscure rather than clarify the core methodological logic. The frequent repetition of theoretical labels and model components gives the impression of conceptual redundancy, and the extensive breakdown into node structures, while technically rigorous, risks overwhelming the reader without first offering a clear rationale for how this coding structure directly supports the research aims. The use of remarks as data points is innovative, but the claim that they function as respondents lacks critical reflection on the implications of treating literature as proxy voices. Additionally, while NVivo-supported analysis adds transparency, the description of coding mechanics could be condensed in favor of a clearer explanation of how this process led to analytical insight. The integration of theories appears well-intended but would benefit from a more focused justification for why these specific frameworks were selected and how they interact, especially given that others—such as Political Ecology or Institutional Analysis—are notably absent. Overall, the section would be stronger with a tighter narrative that prioritizes methodological clarity over procedural detail. Moreover, the paper is heavily weighted toward the materials and methods section, which dominates the manuscript to the point that it overshadows the core analytical contribution. This imbalance should be addressed by making the methods more concise and shifting focus toward the interpretation and discussion of results, where the substance of the research should be most clearly articulated.

 

 

8 - The authors are advised to enlarge Figure 1, as the inscriptions are difficult to read at their current size. In addition, the caption lacks clarity and should be strengthened to clearly explain what the figure is intended to convey and how it supports the structure or argument of the paper. A more detailed caption would help readers understand the figure’s role within the conceptual framework and its connection to the text

 

9 - The results section presents a thorough and data-rich overview of the coding frequencies and thematic distribution, but the emphasis remains heavily descriptive. While the frequency data supports the framework's structure, the section could benefit from more interpretive depth to explain how these patterns reveal underlying dynamics or tensions in post-mining sustainability. Additionally, the following section titled *Findings and Discussions* raises confusion, as the term "findings" appears redundant if results have already been presented—this suggests a need to clarify the distinction between what is reported as results and what is meant by findings, or to consolidate the two sections into a more coherent narrative.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The title could benefit from a more engaging and informative phrasing to better highlight the relevance of the research and attract reader interest. Additionally, the presence of a square bracket appears to be a typographical error; its removal would improve clarity and avoid confusion about the intended meaning.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the article’s title.

We agreed with this comment. We, therefore, have revised the title to improve both clarity and engagement. The unintended square bracket and typographical error have been corrected. We have retained the core framing while ensuring the title more accurately reflects the paper’s conceptual contribution and relevance. The changes can be found in lines 2-3 on page 1 as follows: 

The Dual-Pathway Framework for Post-Mining Sustainability: Institutional and Behavioral Integration in Indonesia.

Comment 2: The abstract would benefit from a more explicit emphasis on the practical applications and broader implications of the research. While the current version outlines the methodology and main findings, it stops short of explaining why these results matter beyond the immediate study. Clearly articulating how the outcomes could inform future research, influence policy, support technological development, or address real-world challenges would enhance the perceived relevance and impact of the work. This would also help readers quickly grasp the significance of the study, especially those outside the immediate subfield.

Response 2: Thank you for your thoughtful comments regarding the abstract. We agree.

We also have revised it for improved clarity and engagement, while retaining the core findings and contributions of the study. The updated version emphasizes the dual-pathway model, theoretical grounding, and policy relevance in a more concise and readable format. The changes can be found in lines 9-23 Page 1 as follows:

Sustainability in post-mining landscapes has left a critical governance challenge in resource-rich countries such as Indonesia, where extraction leaves communities economically vulnerable and environments degraded. This study aims to develop and validate a dual-pathway framework for post-mining sustainability by analyzing the intersection between institutional mechanisms and behavioral readiness. Drawing from a qualitative meta-synthesis of 1,339 stakeholder-derived remarks coded across 80 thematic nodes, the framework identifies ten key dimensions including land compensation, corporate social responsibility (CSR) co-financing, agroecological livelihoods, stakeholder engagement, social norms, and perceived legitimacy. Anchored in Stakeholder Theory and Legitimacy Theory, the findings reveal that sustainability is contingent not solely on technical rehabilitation, but on the synergy between policy reform, community empowerment, and cultural acceptance. While this study is grounded in secondary data synthesis, further field validation is recommended to enhance generalizability across diverse mining regions. The resulting model offers both a conceptual and operational guide for participatory governance and behavioral integration in complex post-extractive contexts with policy recommendations for inclusive, multi-actor planning in Indonesia’s mining regions.

Comment 3: The use of acronyms in the abstract should be minimized, especially when they are not widely recognized across disciplines. Abstracts are often read in isolation and serve as the first point of contact with the work; unfamiliar abbreviations can hinder clarity and reduce accessibility for a broader scientific audience. Unless an acronym is extremely common or used repeatedly in a way that significantly improves readability, it is preferable to use the full term to ensure the abstract remains self-contained and easily understandable.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree.

In response, we have now spelled out “CSR” as “corporate social responsibility” on its first mention in the abstract to enhance clarity for all readers. The changes can be found in lines 13-16 on page 1 as follows:

Drawing from a qualitative meta-synthesis of 1,339 stakeholder-derived remarks coded across 80 thematic nodes, the framework identifies ten key dimensions including land compensation, corporate social responsibility (CSR) co-financing, agroecological livelihoods, stakeholder engagement, social norms, and perceived legitimacy.

Comment 4: Authors are advised to limit the number of keywords to five or six, as these play a central role in how the paper is indexed and retrieved in search engines and academic databases. A focused selection of well-chosen, specific terms enhances the discoverability of the article by aligning it with relevant search queries. Including too many keywords, or using broad or redundant ones, may reduce indexing precision, lower the relevance of the paper in search rankings, and weaken its association with its core topic. A concise, targeted list ensures the paper reaches the appropriate audience and contributes more effectively to its research field.

Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion. We agree.

We have refined the list of keywords to five focused terms that best represent the core themes and contributions of the article. The changes can be found in lines 24-25 Page 1.

Keywords: post-mining sustainability; institutional legitimacy; stakeholder engagement; CSR co-financing; agroecological livelihoods.

Comment 5: The introduction outlines an important and timely topic, and the effort to combine theoretical and empirical elements is clear. However, the text introduces many concepts and models in rapid succession, which may overwhelm the reader before the core research question is fully established. Terms like “institutional alignment” and “behavioral transformation” are used frequently but are not clearly defined at the outset, which makes it harder to grasp how the proposed framework differs from existing approaches. The presentation of the three models feels premature, as their foundation is not yet fully contextualized in relation to prior work. The introduction would benefit from a more focused explanation of the specific problem the study addresses and a clearer positioning of the contribution within current research. A more gradual build-up of the argument, with fewer abstract phrases and a clearer sense of progression, would improve clarity and strengthen the impact of the conceptual proposal.

Response 5: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We agree.

We have revised the Introduction by streamlining the narrative for clarity and moving the core contributions earlier in the section. We also removed reference to the three follow-up models in order to maintain a clear and focused discussion on the reframing of sustainability through the proposed dual-pathway framework. The changes can be found in lines 37-42 on pages 1-2.

This article introduces a dual-pathway framework to reframe post-mining sustainability by integrating two critical dimensions: institutional alignment and behavioral readiness. Drawing on a meta-synthesis of 1,339 stakeholder-derived remarks from academic and institutional literature, the study identifies ten core themes including land compensation, agroecological livelihoods, CSR co-financing, stakeholder engagement, and social norms.

Comment 6: In the introduction paragraph, from row 36 to row 38, where authors state "[...] Addressing these challenges requires a dual focus: reconfiguring institutional arrangements and fostering behavioral shifts that support post-mining recovery and the development of resilient, community-based livelihoods [...]", this statement requires a supporting citation to contextualize these concepts within the framework of recent international literature and to substantiate their relevance. The authors should cite the following work, which directly addresses behavioral shifts in relation to pro-environmental behavior, as it provides empirical grounding and theoretical alignment for the claims made:

-Tomassi, A., Falegnami, A., Meleo, L. and Romano, E., 2024. The GreenSCENT Competence Frameworks. In The European Green Deal in Education (pp. 25-44). Routledge.

Additional publications by the same authors may also be relevant and could be included to further reinforce the argument.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable observation regarding the need to strengthen the conceptual grounding of the dual-focus statement in the Introduction. We agree.

We have now included a citation to the work by Tomassi et al. (2024), as recommended, which directly addresses behavioral shifts in relation to pro-environmental behavior and offers theoretical alignment with our focus on community-based post-mining recovery. This addition reinforces our argument for integrating institutional reconfiguration and behavioral transformation within sustainability frameworks. The changes can be found in the lines 32-36 on page 1, as follows:

Addressing these challenges requires a dual focus: reconfiguring institutional arrangements and fostering behavioral shifts that support post-mining recovery and the development of resilient, community-based livelihoods. This article builds on recent research emphasizing the role of behavioral competence in sustainability transitions [1], extending it into the context of post-mining landscape governance in Indonesia.

We also conducted an additional review of related publications by the same authors, and while no other directly relevant works were identified for integration into the current argument, we remain open to including further sources should the editorial team recommend specific titles.

Comment 7: The methods section is comprehensive and demonstrates considerable effort in structuring a large body of qualitative data. However, the level of detail may obscure rather than clarify the core methodological logic. The frequent repetition of theoretical labels and model components gives the impression of conceptual redundancy, and the extensive breakdown into node structures, while technically rigorous, risks overwhelming the reader without first offering a clear rationale for how this coding structure directly supports the research aims. The use of remarks as data points is innovative, but the claim that they function as respondents lacks critical reflection on the implications of treating literature as proxy voices. Additionally, while NVivo-supported analysis adds transparency, the description of coding mechanics could be condensed in favor of a clearer explanation of how this process led to analytical insight. The integration of theories appears well-intended but would benefit from a more focused justification for why these specific frameworks were selected and how they interact, especially given that others—such as Political Ecology or Institutional Analysis—are notably absent. Overall, the section would be stronger with a tighter narrative that prioritizes methodological clarity over procedural detail. Moreover, the paper is heavily weighted toward the materials and methods section, which dominates the manuscript to the point that it overshadows the core analytical contribution. This imbalance should be addressed by making the methods more concise and shifting focus toward the interpretation and discussion of results, where the substance of the research should be most clearly articulated.

Response 7: We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback and agree that streamlining was necessary to improve clarity and avoid conceptual redundancy.

These changes were intended to preserve methodological rigor while clarifying the logic and purpose of the coding strategy, ensuring the Methods section supports—rather than overshadows—the core analytical contribution of the study.

Accordingly, we made the following adjustments:

In Subsection 2.3 (Coding Framework Development and NVivo Analysis), we have revised the presentation of the coding architecture to emphasize its direct alignment with the dual-pathway conceptual framework. Rather than listing exhaustive procedural details, we now explain how the coding system—comprising 10 parent nodes and 80 child nodes—was strategically developed to reflect both institutional and behavioral dimensions of sustainability. This revision clarifies how the coding process operationalizes the study’s research aims while minimizing theoretical repetition. The changes can be found in lines 233-257 on page 6. Please be advised to see Subsection 2.3 in the revised manuscript file named “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

In Subsection 2.4 (Operationalizing the Dual-Pathway Framework), we explicitly demonstrate how the coding structure supports the integration of theoretical foundations—Stakeholder Theory and Legitimacy Theory—into the analytical design. The content focuses on how the framework serves as a bridge between abstract theory and empirical pattern recognition, thereby reducing model-related redundancy and enhancing interpretive coherence. The changes can be found in lines 258-281 on pages 7-8. Please be advised to see Subsection 2.4 in the revised manuscript file named “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

Additionally, in Subsection 2.7 (Research Limitations and Methodological Reflection), we condensed technical explanations and reframed the reflection to highlight methodological boundaries and conceptual implications rather than mechanical detail. The changes can be found in lines 336-360 on page 9. Please be advised to see Subsection 2.7 in the revised manuscript file named “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

We have revised Section 2.3 “Coding Framework Development and NVivo Analysis” and Section 2.4 “Operationalizing the Dual-Pathway Framework” to streamline the description of coding mechanics and emphasize how thematic patterns supported analytical insights. In particular, we highlight how the co-occurrence of keywords (e.g., “land rights,” “compensation,” and “governance legitimacy”) informed institutional integration, and how relational groupings such as “trust,” “empowerment,” and “norms” shaped the behavioral pillar of the model. These changes clarify the direct linkage between the NVivo-based coding architecture and the model’s empirical formulation (The corrected manuscript can be found in lines 233-281 on pages 6-8).

We have addressed this concern in Subsection 2.1: Research Design and Theoretical Foundation, where we provide a clearer rationale for the selection and interplay of Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and Triple Bottom Line (TBL). These frameworks were chosen due to their alignment with the dual focus of the study: institutional mechanisms and behavioral drivers of post-mining sustainability. The changes can be found in lines 150-203 on pages 4-5. Please be advised to see Subsection 2.1 in the revised manuscript file named “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

We also explicitly acknowledge the absence of broader macro-structural lenses such as Political Ecology or Institutional Analysis and justify this decision by noting their limited utility in capturing mid-level, action-oriented integration patterns central to our framework. This justification is further reflected in the methodological reflection in Subsection 2.7. Please see above mentioned in lines 336-360 on page 9. Please be advised to see Subsection 2.7 in the revised manuscript file named “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

We have revised the Materials and Methods section accordingly. Across Subsections 2.2 to 2.4, we condensed procedural explanations—particularly those related to NVivo mechanics, node structure, and coding sequence—while preserving the clarity of analytical logic. We shifted the emphasis from detailed procedural steps to the rationale and insights derived from the data. This allows the section to remain methodologically transparent without overshadowing the empirical findings and theoretical contributions. Please be advised to see Subsection 2.2 to 2.4 in the revised manuscript file named “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

In addition, the overall length of Section 2 has been reduced, and its structure reorganized to improve narrative flow and cohesion. We agree with the reviewer that the interpretative depth belongs primarily in the findings and discussion, and we have accordingly ensured that these sections are now more prominent in the overall manuscript.

Comment 8: The authors are advised to enlarge Figure 1, as the inscriptions are difficult to read at their current size. In addition, the caption lacks clarity and should be strengthened to clearly explain what the figure is intended to convey and how it supports the structure or argument of the paper. A more detailed caption would help readers understand the figure’s role within the conceptual framework and its connection to the text.

Response 8: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We Agree.

In response, Figure 1 has been resized to enhance readability, ensuring that all text and diagram components are now clearly legible. Additionally, the figure caption has been substantially revised to better reflect its conceptual significance and direct link to the dual-pathway framework introduced in Subsection 2.1. The new caption now explicitly explains the division between institutional and behavioral mechanisms and clarifies how these two dimensions converge into a unified model of post-mining sustainability. We believe these improvements significantly enhance the figure’s communicative function and integration into the manuscript’s overall structure. The changes can be found in lines 150-203 on pages 4-5.

Comment 9: The results section presents a thorough and data-rich overview of the coding frequencies and thematic distribution, but the emphasis remains heavily descriptive. While the frequency data supports the framework's structure, the section could benefit from more interpretive depth to explain how these patterns reveal underlying dynamics or tensions in post-mining sustainability. Additionally, the following section titled *Findings and Discussions* raises confusion, as the term "findings" appears redundant if results have already been presented—this suggests a need to clarify the distinction between what is reported as results and what is meant by findings, or to consolidate the two sections into a more coherent narrative.

Response 9: Thank you for this insightful and constructive observation. We fully agree that the original division between the Results and Findings and Discussion sections created an unnecessary separation that may obscure the interpretive depth of the analysis.

In response, we have taken the following major revisions:

1. Integration of Results and Findings into a Single Coherent Section

We have merged the originally separate Results and Findings and Discussions sections into a unified section titled “3. Result and Discussion.” This change removes the redundancy and aligns with your recommendation for a clearer narrative flow. The new structure presents empirical findings and interpretive insights as an integrated continuum, enhancing readability and analytical clarity. All changes can be found in lines 361-1163 on pages 10–27 of the revised manuscript.

2. Reframing Around the Dual-Pathway Framework

The findings have been reorganized and explicitly aligned with the Dual-Pathway Framework, which distinguishes between institutional and behavioral dimensions of sustainability. Each subsection is now titled and discussed in direct relation to this framework, ensuring that the empirical themes support and illuminate the theoretical model. This is evident in the revised structure of Section 3.2 to 3.5 (see lines 443-1057 on pages 12-25), where institutional patterns (e.g., land governance, CSR, accountability) and behavioral patterns (e.g., norms, empowerment, engagement) are interpreted cohesively. 

3. Enhanced Interpretive Depth Beyond Frequency Counts

While frequency data from NVivo coding remains part of the analysis, we have significantly enhanced interpretive depth throughout Section 3. Instead of listing coded data descriptively, each thematic area now includes discussion of underlying contradictions, enabling conditions, governance gaps, and stakeholder dynamics. For instance, in Section 3.4 (“Cross-Cutting Tensions and Stakeholder Contradictions,” in lines 818-1009 on pages 20–24), we synthesize patterns of conflict and misalignment between institutions and communities—highlighting critical leverage points for transformation. 

4. Radical Revision of Findings Based on Theoretical Integration

In response to your comment and another reviewer’s recommendation, we radically revised the findings to reflect a theory-informed structure. Each subsection now integrates insights from Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Rather than treating “findings” as separate from the results, the revised Section 3 incorporates interpretive commentary, causal reasoning, and theoretical reflection in a single coherent narrative. The revisions better demonstrate how the patterns derived from 1,339 stakeholder remarks connect to sustainability transitions in post-mining Indonesia.

Please be advised to see the whole revision in the file of “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

We believe these revisions have strengthened the manuscript’s analytical rigor and addressed your concerns about clarity, theoretical framing, and interpretive richness. Thank you for guiding these improvements. 

Attached please find the manuscript revisions on a word file titled “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

Warm regards,
Justan R. Siahaan (on behalf of all co-authors)
Corresponding Author | ORCID: 0009-0009-1623-7305
Email: jrsiahaan@yahoo.com

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The text of the article should be shortened, as it contains many repetitions. Some examples:
- the opening paragraph of subsection 2.1 (lines 140-144) repeats earlier statements (lines 130-138),
- the content of lines 161-172 is repeated in lines 179-189, 
- lines 378-387 repeat most of the earlier statements, etc.
Instead of describing the conceptual framework (lines 179…), it should be better to cite appendices here. They contain the necessary descriptive explanations. I think it will be more readable. Or maybe it would be better to include them in the text in the form of tables?
2. In Table 1, the description of parent nodes is unnecessary – this is included in the text and in appendixes.
3. The use of NVivo software for organizing data is correct and very helpful with a large number of records. However, I believe that the first conceptual approach to extracting key nodes should be made by the authors, based on their knowledge, and then confronted with an automatic process.
4. When reviewing the literature list, one may get the impression that the authors have placed a strong emphasis on items related to behavioral integration and some aspects of institutional integration such as CSR. It seems that too little attention is paid to geological, technical and environmental problems related to the impact of mining on the environment and the real possibilities and limitations of reclamation of post-mining areas. It should be checked whether the materials subjected to analysis include a representative number of items related to these problems and supplemented. In app. 1 and 2, there are no clear indications of these issues.
5. The conclusions contained in the chpt. 4.11 are correct, but not groundbreaking. The need for a comprehensive approach to the development and sustainability of post-mining areas has been known and discussed for years. This comprehensiveness covers precisely the two domains of institutional and behavioral integration.
 The use of NVivo software for these purposes is interesting and innovative.

1. The text of the article should be shortened, as it contains many repetitions. Some examples:

- the opening paragraph of subsection 2.1 (lines 140-144) repeats earlier statements (lines 130-138),

- the content of lines 161-172 is repeated in lines 179-189,

- lines 378-387 repeat most of the earlier statements, etc.

Instead of describing the conceptual framework (lines 179…), it should be better to cite appendices here. They contain the necessary descriptive explanations. I think it will be more readable. Or maybe it would be better to include them in the text in the form of tables?

2. In Table 1, the description of parent nodes is unnecessary – this is included in the text and in appendixes.
3. The use of NVivo software for organizing data is correct and very helpful with a large number of records. However, I believe that the first conceptual approach to extracting key nodes should be made by the authors, based on their knowledge, and then confronted with an automatic process.
4. When reviewing the literature list, one may get the impression that the authors have placed a strong emphasis on items related to behavioral integration and some aspects of institutional integration such as CSR. It seems that too little attention is paid to geological, technical and environmental problems related to the impact of mining on the environment and the real possibilities and limitations of reclamation of post-mining areas. It should be checked whether the materials subjected to analysis include a representative number of items related to these problems and supplemented. In app. 1 and 2, there are no clear indications of these issues.
5. The conclusions contained in the chpt. 4.11 are correct, but not groundbreaking. The need for a comprehensive approach to the development and sustainability of post-mining areas has been known and discussed for years. This comprehensiveness covers precisely the two domains of institutional and behavioral integration.

 The use of NVivo software for these purposes is interesting and innovative.

1. The text of the article should be shortened, as it contains many repetitions. Some examples:

- the opening paragraph of subsection 2.1 (lines 140-144) repeats earlier statements (lines 130-138),

- the content of lines 161-172 is repeated in lines 179-189,

- lines 378-387 repeat most of the earlier statements, etc.

Instead of describing the conceptual framework (lines 179…), it should be better to cite appendices here. They contain the necessary descriptive explanations. I think it will be more readable. Or maybe it would be better to include them in the text in the form of tables?

2. In Table 1, the description of parent nodes is unnecessary – this is included in the text and in appendixes.
3. The use of NVivo software for organizing data is correct and very helpful with a large number of records. However, I believe that the first conceptual approach to extracting key nodes should be made by the authors, based on their knowledge, and then confronted with an automatic process.
4. When reviewing the literature list, one may get the impression that the authors have placed a strong emphasis on items related to behavioral integration and some aspects of institutional integration such as CSR. It seems that too little attention is paid to geological, technical and environmental problems related to the impact of mining on the environment and the real possibilities and limitations of reclamation of post-mining areas. It should be checked whether the materials subjected to analysis include a representative number of items related to these problems and supplemented. In app. 1 and 2, there are no clear indications of these issues.
5. The conclusions contained in the chpt. 4.11 are correct, but not groundbreaking. The need for a comprehensive approach to the development and sustainability of post-mining areas has been known and discussed for years. This comprehensiveness covers precisely the two domains of institutional and behavioral integration.

 The use of NVivo software for these purposes is interesting and innovative.

1. The text of the article should be shortened, as it contains many repetitions. Some examples:

- the opening paragraph of subsection 2.1 (lines 140-144) repeats earlier statements (lines 130-138),

- the content of lines 161-172 is repeated in lines 179-189,

- lines 378-387 repeat most of the earlier statements, etc.

Instead of describing the conceptual framework (lines 179…), it should be better to cite appendices here. They contain the necessary descriptive explanations. I think it will be more readable. Or maybe it would be better to include them in the text in the form of tables?

2. In Table 1, the description of parent nodes is unnecessary – this is included in the text and in appendixes.
3. The use of NVivo software for organizing data is correct and very helpful with a large number of records. However, I believe that the first conceptual approach to extracting key nodes should be made by the authors, based on their knowledge, and then confronted with an automatic process.
4. When reviewing the literature list, one may get the impression that the authors have placed a strong emphasis on items related to behavioral integration and some aspects of institutional integration such as CSR. It seems that too little attention is paid to geological, technical and environmental problems related to the impact of mining on the environment and the real possibilities and limitations of reclamation of post-mining areas. It should be checked whether the materials subjected to analysis include a representative number of items related to these problems and supplemented. In app. 1 and 2, there are no clear indications of these issues.
5. The conclusions contained in the chpt. 4.11 are correct, but not groundbreaking. The need for a comprehensive approach to the development and sustainability of post-mining areas has been known and discussed for years. This comprehensiveness covers precisely the two domains of institutional and behavioral integration.

 The use of NVivo software for these purposes is interesting and innovative.

1. The text of the article should be shortened, as it contains many repetitions. Some examples:

- the opening paragraph of subsection 2.1 (lines 140-144) repeats earlier statements (lines 130-138),

- the content of lines 161-172 is repeated in lines 179-189,

- lines 378-387 repeat most of the earlier statements, etc.

Instead of describing the conceptual framework (lines 179…), it should be better to cite appendices here. They contain the necessary descriptive explanations. I think it will be more readable. Or maybe it would be better to include them in the text in the form of tables?

2. In Table 1, the description of parent nodes is unnecessary – this is included in the text and in appendixes.
3. The use of NVivo software for organizing data is correct and very helpful with a large number of records. However, I believe that the first conceptual approach to extracting key nodes should be made by the authors, based on their knowledge, and then confronted with an automatic process.
4. When reviewing the literature list, one may get the impression that the authors have placed a strong emphasis on items related to behavioral integration and some aspects of institutional integration such as CSR. It seems that too little attention is paid to geological, technical and environmental problems related to the impact of mining on the environment and the real possibilities and limitations of reclamation of post-mining areas. It should be checked whether the materials subjected to analysis include a representative number of items related to these problems and supplemented. In app. 1 and 2, there are no clear indications of these issues.
5. The conclusions contained in the chpt. 4.11 are correct, but not groundbreaking. The need for a comprehensive approach to the development and sustainability of post-mining areas has been known and discussed for years. This comprehensiveness covers precisely the two domains of institutional and behavioral integration.

 The use of NVivo software for these purposes is interesting and innovative.

Author Response

Comment 1: The text of the article should be shortened, as it contains many repetitions. Some examples:
- the opening paragraph of subsection 2.1 (lines 140-144) repeats earlier statements (lines 130-138),
- the content of lines 161-172 is repeated in lines 179-189, 
- lines 378-387 repeat most of the earlier statements, etc.
Instead of describing the conceptual framework (lines 179…), it should be better to cite appendices here. They contain the necessary descriptive explanations. I think it will be more readable. Or maybe it would be better to include them in the text in the form of tables?

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgment. We agree.

In revising the manuscript, we made a concerted effort to enhance clarity and eliminate redundancy. We are pleased that these revisions have improved the overall readability and ensured that each paragraph contributes distinctively to the manuscript’s core argument. Specifically:

1. The opening paragraph of Subsection 2.1 has been restructured to avoid duplicating earlier methodological descriptions. Changes can be found in lines 151-203 on pages 4-5, as follows:

2.1. Research Design and Theoretical Foundation

This study applies a theory-informed qualitative meta-synthesis to reframe sustainability in Indonesia’s post-mining landscapes. The research is anchored in a dual-pathway conceptual framework that integrates institutional mechanisms and behavioral drivers. This model guided both the construction of the coding architecture and the selection of theoretical perspectives, aiming to capture the dynamic interplay between governance structures and community behaviors in post-mining transformation.

... (intentionally cut)

Through this approach, the study provides a replicable analytic framework capable of guiding sustainability initiatives in post-mining contexts. By combining meta-synthesis techniques with theory-driven analysis, the model not only captures the logic embedded in existing literature but also operationalizes it in a form that is practically usable for governance, policy design, and future interdisciplinary research.

2. The content between lines 161–189 has been merged and refined to remove overlap in the justification of theoretical frameworks. Changes can be found in lines 142-203 on pages 4-5, as stated at point 1 above plus an opening paragraph in lines142-149 as follows:

This study adopts a qualitative meta-synthesis approach to develop an empirically grounded framework for post-mining sustainability in Indonesia. Rather than proposing an entirely new theoretical construct, the method operationalizes existing sustainability frameworks by extracting and coding 1,339 literature-based stakeholder remarks. The analytical process emphasizes structured use of NVivo software, supported by domain-informed theories and systematic thematic coding. The following subsections outline the research design, coding strategy, framework development, and contextual foundations in detail.

3. Redundant phrasing in the original lines 378–387 has been revised in Section 2.6 to focus on distinct methodological limitations rather than reiterating earlier content. Changes can be found in lines 314-335 on page 8, as follows:

2.6 Research Validity and Analytical Rigor

To ensure the credibility and rigor of this qualitative meta-synthesis, multiple validation strategies were applied throughout the research process. First, the study adhered to systematic review protocols that prioritize transparency, reproducibility, and methodological coherence. By combining pre-defined inclusion criteria, iterative coding procedures, and intersubjective checks, the research design minimizes bias and strengthens internal validity.

... (intentionally cut)

Finally, theoretical validation was embedded in the model-building process. Rather than simply aggregating remarks, the study used abductive reasoning to interpret patterns, identify causal logics, and articulate plausible pathways for sustainability transformation. This interpretive rigor reinforces the transferability and theoretical robustness of the resulting model.

4. We have revised Section 2.3 to enhance readability and structural clarity by taking the following actions:

1. Streamlined the in-text narrative in lines 179 onward to avoid overly descriptive repetition. The changes can be found in lines 150-203. Please be advised to see the changes in the file of “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.
2. Moved detailed descriptive components of the framework—specifically the layered logic of the ten parent nodes and their 80 child nodes—into Appendix C as suggested, where they are presented in a clear tabular format. Please be advised to see the Appendix C in the file of “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.
3. Included cross-references in the main text (e.g., “See Appendix C for the detailed node architecture”) to guide readers who seek further explanation without overwhelming the core narrative. Please be advised to see the Appendix C in the file of “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.
4. To accommodate the reviewer’s readability concern, we streamlined the conceptual explanation in Section 2.3 and directed readers to Appendix C, which now contains a clearly organized tabular summary of the node architecture. We did not include an in-text table to avoid duplicating information, but we have inserted cross-references to the appendix where appropriate. The changes in section 2.3 can be found in lines 233-257 on page 6 as follows:

2.3 Coding Framework Development and NVivo Analysis

The analytical foundation of this study is built on a dual-level NVivo coding architecture, comprising 10 parent nodes and 80 child nodes. This structure is intentionally aligned with the dual-pathway conceptual framework introduced earlier, which distinguishes between institutional mechanisms (e.g., governance legitimacy, CSR provision, land compensation) and behavioral drivers (e.g., motivation, trust, norms).

... (intentionally cut)

This multi-stage process, grounded in both deductive and inductive reasoning, ensured semantic alignment, thematic saturation, and traceability within the NVivo environment. The resulting node architecture is cross-referenced in Appendix A, with detailed technical descriptors in Appendix B, and thematic–environmental linkages outlined in Appendix C.

Comment 2: In Table 1, the description of parent nodes is unnecessary – this is included in the text and in appendixes.

Response 2: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We agree.

In response, we have revised Table 1 to eliminate descriptive explanations of the parent nodes and avoid redundancy with the main text and appendices. The table now provides a concise and reader-friendly matrix that lists each parent node, its corresponding child nodes, and their cumulative frequency count based on NVivo analysis. This updated format improves clarity while maintaining transparency regarding the coding structure. Full thematic descriptions remain accessible in Subsections 2.3 and 2.4 of the main text and in Appendices A–C for further reference. Please be advised to see the Table 1 in line 267 on page 7 in the file of “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

Comment 3: The use of NVivo software for organizing data is correct and very helpful with a large number of records. However, I believe that the first conceptual approach to extracting key nodes should be made by the authors, based on their knowledge, and then confronted with an automatic process.

Response 3: We appreciate this insightful observation. We agree.

As explained in Subsection 2.3: Coding Framework Development and NVivo Analysis of the revised manuscript, the coding process followed a multi-stage approach that aligns with the reviewer’s recommendation. The initial construction of the coding structure—comprising ten parent nodes and eighty child nodes—was theory-informed and conceptually anchored in Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). These frameworks guided the generation of keyword lists and conceptual anchors for each node. The changes can be found at lines 239-245 on page 6 stating:

The development of child nodes was informed by both theoretical frameworks and emergent patterns within the literature-derived remarks. Initial keyword lists for each child node were constructed using domain-specific synonyms and conceptual anchors grounded in Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). These keywords guided NVivo’s synonym-enabled auto-coding process, which was then followed by rigorous manual refinement to eliminate false positives and capture relevant remarks missed due to phrasing variation.

This initial step, driven by author expertise and theoretical grounding, preceded the use of NVivo’s auto-coding functions. The software-assisted coding was then rigorously refined through manual validation to correct for false positives and phrasing variations—ensuring that the process remained analytically robust and context-sensitive.

Comment 4: When reviewing the literature list, one may get the impression that the authors have placed a strong emphasis on items related to behavioral integration and some aspects of institutional integration such as CSR. It seems that too little attention is paid to geological, technical and environmental problems related to the impact of mining on the environment and the real possibilities and limitations of reclamation of post-mining areas. It should be checked whether the materials subjected to analysis include a representative number of items related to these problems and supplemented. In app. 1 and 2, there are no clear indications of these issues.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree.

In response, we carefully revisited our dataset and appendices to ensure that the analytical framework adequately reflects environmental and technical challenges in post-mining areas.

To improve clarity and balance, we added a focused summary in Appendix C titled “Cross-Referencing Environmental Themes with NVivo Nodes.” This appendix presents a curated table of ten environmental themes, including soil degradation, ecosystem restoration, climate resilience, erosion control, land use planning, biodiversity protection, and environmental regulation. Each issue is mapped to specific NVivo parent and child nodes, along with the types of literature sources used (e.g., soil science, reclamation policy, institutional environmental reviews, disaster preparedness). Please be advised to see the Appendix C in the file of “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

In addition:

• Appendix B details the node-level definitions and frequencies, confirming the presence of high-frequency environmental content, such as Soil health restoration (78 references), Climate-resilient agriculture (74), Agroforestry practices (93), Compliance with EIA/AMDAL (30), and Biodiversity protection (linked under Environmental Preparedness). Please be advised to see the Appendix B in the file of “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.
• These environmental and technical themes are embedded primarily under Agroecological Livelihoods, Land Compensation and Planning, Legitimacy and Governance Alignment, and Environmental Preparedness, thus supporting the integrated sustainability approach. Please be advised to see the Appendix C in the file of “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

Although our primary focus is the institutional and behavioral readiness for sustainability transformation, we fully acknowledge that ecological grounding is essential to that process. Therefore, these updates to Appendix B and C explicitly demonstrate that environmental, geological, and technical reclamation concerns are not only included in our literature corpus but are also thematically coded and structurally integrated into the dual-pathway framework.

Comment 5: The conclusions contained in the chpt. 4.11 are correct, but not groundbreaking. The need for a comprehensive approach to the development and sustainability of post-mining areas has been known and discussed for years. This comprehensiveness covers precisely the two domains of institutional and behavioral integration.

Response 5: Thank you for this critical and well-reasoned comment. We fully acknowledge the importance of avoiding restatement of broadly known conclusions.

In response to your note—as well as a related suggestion from another reviewer—we have radically restructured the findings and conclusion sections to offer a more novel and actionable contribution.

Specifically:

1. We formally adopted and framed all findings using the Dual-Pathway Framework—which integrates institutional structures (e.g., CSR governance, stakeholder legitimacy, accountability, land policy) with behavioral dimensions (e.g., norms, intentions, empowerment, and local participation)—as a central theoretical and empirical lens throughout Section 3. This transforms the discussion from general comprehensiveness into a structured model of interaction and interdependence. The changes can be found in section 3. Please be advised to see the Section 3 in the file of “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

2. In Chapter 3.5 and 3.6, we synthesized these dual domains to uncover the underlying tensions, gaps, and alignment mechanisms that influence sustainability outcomes. This includes cross-cutting contradictions between corporate intent and community behavior, or between national law and local readiness, which go beyond earlier discussions of mere “integration.”. The changes can be found in lines 1010-1103 on pages 24-26 as follows:

3.5 Strategic Insights, Limitations, and Future Pathways

The findings from this study offer several critical implications for policy, governance, and sustainability practice in post-mining contexts. First and foremost, the analysis reinforces the need to move beyond compliance-based governance frameworks toward more integrative, co-produced models of transformation. As demonstrated in Figure 3, sustainability in post-mining landscapes is not a product of technical delivery alone, but a reinforcing outcome of structural legitimacy, behavioral readiness, and collaborative engagement. Policymakers must therefore prioritize institutional mechanisms that are both procedurally sound and socially resonant—ensuring that land compensation, CSR provision, and agroecological planning are deeply embedded in local realities [71, 78].

... (intentionally cut)

Lastly, the future pathways suggested by this study call for a deeper institutional and academic commitment to sustainability co-production. This includes embedding the dual-pathway model into governance reform efforts, creating pilot projects that operationalize sustainability reinforcement, and institutionalizing feedback-based evaluation metrics. As argued by Clodoveo et al. [85], equitable transformation depends on empowering stakeholders to co-shape the systems that affect them. By placing behavioral and institutional integration at the core of sustainability strategies, Indonesia—and other resource-rich nations—can transition from extractive development to resilient, inclusive, and community-driven transformation.

3.6 Policy and Governance Implications

The findings from this study point to urgent policy and governance shifts needed to achieve sustainable transformation in Indonesia’s post-mining landscapes. Institutional performance alone—anchored in reporting frameworks and budget delivery—has proven insufficient without a parallel commitment to behavioral legitimacy and local empowerment. A central implication is that CSR governance must evolve from a company-driven obligation to a multi-stakeholder, co-financed system, where communities, local governments, and independent evaluators co-design and assess development outcomes [84, 86].

... (intentionally cut)

Lastly, this study introduces the TULANG framework—short for Transformative, Unified, Legitimate, Accountable, and Networked Governance—as a strategic model for sustainable post-mining transformation [89]. The framework emphasizes that meaningful change can only emerge when institutional design and behavioral transformation are co-produced through trust-building, shared decision-making, and iterative feedback. It calls for a policy paradigm where ministries, corporations, and local leaders move away from isolated mandates toward collaborative governance, in which structural reforms are directly shaped by community engagement and social legitimacy. This shift requires a fundamental change in how laws, budget rules, and development plans are conceived—not simply for communities, but with them.

3. Furthermore, we introduced the TULANG Theory (Transformative, Unified, Legitimate, Accountable, and Networked Governance) in the concluding section as a theoretical culmination of the Dual-Pathway logic. The TULANG Theory offers a performance-based governance framework that formalizes the interdependence between institutional legitimacy and behavioral readiness, supported by sustainable provisioning mechanisms such as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL). This theory not only responds to the call for comprehensiveness but advances a new theoretical lens for transformation-readiness in post-mining landscapes—one that is adaptable, evaluative, and grounded in stakeholder realities.

4. Section 3.6 has thus been revised to highlight the interpretive value and originality of both the Dual-Pathway Framework and the TULANG Theory. Instead of reiterating the need for comprehensiveness, the section now presents an actionable and scalable governance model that can guide policy design, performance monitoring, and institutional transformation across diverse reclamation contexts.

We also emphasize that this integrated framework is empirically grounded in 1,339 literature-derived stakeholder remarks, providing fresh analytical substance to a long-recognized challenge. We trust that  these changes respond meaningfully to your critique and significantly strengthen the manuscript’s originality, theoretical grounding, and contribution to the sustainability and governance literature.

Other Comment: The use of NVivo software for these purposes is interesting and innovative.

Other response: We also appreciate the reviewer’s positive recognition of our use of NVivo software for thematic synthesis, which we aimed to apply in a rigorous and structured manner.

Warm regards,
Justan R. Siahaan (on behalf of all co-authors)
Corresponding Author | ORCID: 0009-0009-1623-7305
Email: jrsiahaan@yahoo.com

Attachment: Sustainability-3561819-Revised.docx

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good luck!

 

This article is written on a relevant topic and is devoted to post-mining landscapes reframing sustainability. At the same time, there are a sufficient number of comments that seem to be an obstacle to the immediate promotion of the manuscript.

Title: The poor text should be corrected; the square bracket should be removed.

Abstract: despite the general informative context, this section does not present the purpose of the study, its object and subject, the main methods (except for the theoretical basis), as well as its limitations.

1. Introduction: in this section, after line 128, it is advisable to show the purpose of the study and its main objectives, show in detail the object and subject, hypothesis and research questions.
2. Materials and Methods: the main remark is that this section does not describe the problem of post-mining landscapes, that is, the object of the study is not disclosed in any way. Obviously, after line 336, it is advisable to give a description of the state of the post-mining problem in the world in general and in Indonesia in particular. 3. Results: this section is quite informative, but does not contain a description of a practical case ­– either at the level of one mining cluster or at the national level. In this regard, the research results are more in line with the "Review" article type, rather than the "Article" article type. In this regard, I recommend inserting the case material to support the authors' theoretical conclusions after line 677.
3. Finding and Discussion: the discussion section should contain the main breakthrough results, a description of the obstacles and limitations of the study, as well as future ways to overcome them. In terms of discussing the research results, subsections 4.3-4-11 look like a rather lengthy description of the theoretical provisions of the dissertation (they are presented too verbosely), and are more in line with section 3 (Results).
4. Conclusions and Policy Recommendation: this section also reflects the results of the dissertation research to a greater extent, rather than a scientific article. In general, the author’s conclusions and findings appear quite general, since they are not supported by either an analysis of the problem (which should have been given in Section 2) or an example of a successful case (absent from Section 3).

 

Good luck!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Authors,

This manuscript contains a fairly large number of grammatical and syntactic errors that should be corrected before promotion,

Regards,

Author Response

Comment 01: Title: The poor text should be corrected; the square bracket should be removed.

Response 01: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the article’s title. We agreed with this comment.

We have revised the title to improve both clarity and engagement. The unintended square bracket and typographical error have been corrected. We have retained the core framing while ensuring the title more accurately reflects the paper’s conceptual contribution and relevance. The changes can be found in Line 2-3 Page 1 as follows:

The Dual-Pathway Framework for Post-Mining Sustainability: Institutional and Behavioral Integration in Indonesia

Comment 02: Abstract: despite the general informative context, this section does not present the purpose of the study, its object and subject, the main methods (except for the theoretical basis), as well as its limitations.

Response 02: Thank you for your thoughtful comments regarding the abstract. We agree.

We also have revised it for improved clarity and engagement, while retaining the core findings and contributions of the study. The updated version emphasizes the dual-pathway model, theoretical grounding, and policy relevance in a more concise and readable format. The changes can be found in line 11-16 (purpose, object and subject), within the abstract in Page 1 as follows:

Sustainability in post-mining landscapes has left a critical governance challenge in resource-rich countries such as Indonesia, where extraction leaves communities economically vulnerable and environments degraded. This study aims to develop and validate a dual-pathway framework for post-mining sustainability by analyzing the intersection between institutional mechanisms and behavioral readiness. Drawing from a qualitative meta-synthesis of 1,339 stakeholder-derived remarks coded across 80 thematic nodes, the framework identifies ten key dimensions including land compensation, corporate social responsibility (CSR) co-financing, agroecological livelihoods, stakeholder engagement, social norms, and perceived legitimacy. Anchored in Stakeholder Theory and Legitimacy Theory, the findings reveal that sustainability is contingent not solely on technical rehabilitation, but on the synergy between policy reform, community empowerment, and cultural acceptance. While this study is grounded in secondary data synthesis, further field validation is recommended to enhance generalizability across diverse mining regions. The resulting model offers both a conceptual and operational guide for participatory governance and behavioral integration in complex post-extractive contexts with policy recommendations for inclusive, multi-actor planning in Indonesia’s mining regions.

Comment 1: Introduction: in this section, after line 128, it is advisable to show the purpose of the study and its main objectives, show in detail the object and subject, hypothesis and research questions.

Response 1: Thank you for this important recommendation. We agree.

In response, we have added a dedicated paragraph immediately after line 128 that explicitly outlines the study’s purpose, main objectives, object and subject of investigation, and guiding research questions. This addition enhances the structure and helps readers better understand the scope and direction of the study. The changes can be found in the line 128– 140 on page 3 as follows:

The purpose of this study is to develop a foundational framework for reframing sustainability in post-mining landscapes through the integration of institutional mechanisms and behavioral readiness. The object of this study is the sustainability of post-mining landscapes in Indonesia, while the subject concerns the institutional and behavioral drivers that shape this sustainability. Specifically, the study aims to: (1) identify core themes that link institutional policy, community behavior, and sustainability outcomes; (2) construct a dual-pathway model grounded in empirical evidence and theory; and (3) provide a conceptual and operational basis for future sustainability interventions. The central research question guiding this inquiry is: How can institutional and behavioral integration be framed to achieve sustainable transformation in Indonesia’s post-mining landscapes? While the study does not test a formal hypothesis, it is informed by the theoretical proposition that sustainable outcomes arise when governance mechanisms and behavioral drivers are aligned and mutually reinforcing.

Comment 2: Materials and Methods: the main remark is that this section does not describe the problem of post-mining landscapes, that is, the object of the study is not disclosed in any way. Obviously, after line 336, it is advisable to give a description of the state of the post-mining problem in the world in general and in Indonesia in particular. 3. Results: this section is quite informative, but does not contain a description of a practical case ­– either at the level of one mining cluster or at the national level. In this regard, the research results are more in line with the "Review" article type, rather than the "Article" article type. In this regard, I recommend inserting the case material to support the authors' theoretical conclusions after line 677.

Response 2: Thank you for your crucial observation. We agree.

In response, we have added a dedicated subsection following line 336 that contextualizes the global and Indonesian post-mining challenges. This addition strengthens the rationale for the study and clearly identifies the object of investigation by linking empirical realities to the need for an integrated sustainability framework. The changes can be found on line 282-313 on page 8 as follows:

2.5 Contextual Framing: The Post-Mining Problem in Indonesia

Indonesia’s mining sector continues to expand, contributing significantly to national GDP while simultaneously exacerbating environmental degradation and social risk in extraction zones [27, 28]. As the extraction of nickel, coal, and gold intensifies, mounting pressure is placed on land, water resources, and local livelihoods. Reports from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry indicate widespread non-compliance among mining companies—particularly regarding land reclamation and post-mining restoration obligations. Although legal frameworks mandate companies to prepare, implement, and report reclamation plans, enforcement remains inconsistent and weakly regulated across provinces, largely due to capacity gaps at the local level [29].

Local governments often lack the technical capacity, legal clarity, and institutional coordination required to ensure corporate accountability. In some instances, decentralization policies have widened the governance gap between national regulations and local enforcement. These challenges are especially acute in regions such as Southeast Sulawesi, East Kalimantan, and West Papua, where extractive operations overlap with ecologically fragile and socially vulnerable territories. As noted in the World Bank’s Mining Sector Diagnostic Report, the performance of mining sector management in Indonesia is uneven, with most weaknesses arising from poor implementation of otherwise sound policies. The report also highlights that decentralization has contributed to legal ambiguity and institutional fragmentation, limiting the ability of local governments to enforce reclamation obligations effectively [29].

Academic and institutional reviews have consistently highlighted the fragmented nature of post-mining interventions in Indonesia. Technical assessments, environmental audits, and sustainability reports are frequently conducted in isolation, with minimal integration between spatial planning, social inclusion, and community participation. This fragmentation stems from overlapping mandates and conflicting sectoral regulations, particularly between forestry, mining, and regional development authorities—resulting in weak coordination and spatial disharmony [30]. Moreover, efforts to include local communities through participatory planning, such as community mapping or localized land-use claims, have remained limited, further marginalizing affected populations [31]. As a result, post-mining lands are frequently left dormant or become the subject of contested claims, failing to deliver either ecological restoration or socio-economic revitalization.

Comment 3: Finding and Discussion: the discussion section should contain the main breakthrough results, a description of the obstacles and limitations of the study, as well as future ways to overcome them. In terms of discussing the research results, subsections 4.3-4-11 look like a rather lengthy description of the theoretical provisions of the dissertation (they are presented too verbosely), and are more in line with section 3 (Results).

Response 3: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that the integration of practical case material is essential to distinguish the manuscript as an empirical contribution rather than a purely conceptual or review-based article.

In response, we have revised the manuscript to include national-level case context and empirical illustrations drawn from Indonesia’s post-mining regions—particularly in Sulawesi and Kalimantan, where reclamation governance, stakeholder tensions, and CSR co-financing mechanisms are highly visible.

We address this by embedding practical case signals in the new subsection 3.1 Empirical Overview of Thematic Patterns and by incorporating applied examples of institutional gaps and behavioral readiness failures in the analytical subsections that follow (e.g., 3.2 and 3.3). These additions help to contextualize the coding patterns and ground the theoretical conclusions in the lived realities of Indonesian post-mining landscapes. The changes can be found in lines 443-6377 on pages 12-20 as follows:

3.2 Institutional Integration Themes

This subsection interprets the institutional dimensions of sustainability as reflected in the 1,339 coded remarks. Four thematic pillars emerged under the institutional pathway: Land Compensation and Planning, Legitimacy and Governance Alignment, CSR Co-Financing Mechanisms, and Agroecological Livelihoods. As visualized in Figure 2, these pillars collectively represent the left-hand stream of the dual-pathway framework, focused on formal structures, policies, and regulatory instruments necessary for post-mining transformation. They correspond directly to four of the ten parent nodes outlined in Appendix A, each supported by multiple child nodes that detail the granular institutional factors—ranging from spatial zoning to CSR budgeting schemes.

… (intentionally cut)

While institutional mechanisms such as land compensation, governance alignment, CSR financing, and agroecological planning provide the structural scaffolding for sustainable reclamation, they are insufficient on their own. Lasting transformation also requires shifts in behavior, values, and perceptions among stakeholders. The next section turns to these behavioral dimensions, which are equally critical in the dual-pathway framework (Figure 3). Drawing from the NVivo-coded data, four additional thematic pillars are explored: Motivation and Empowerment, Norms and Attitudes, Stakeholder Trust and Engagement, and Behavioral Readiness for Change. These themes reveal how psychological drivers and social interactions shape the adoption, legitimacy, and effectiveness of post-mining sustainability initiatives. When integrated with institutional interventions, they complete the dual engine necessary for transformation—demonstrating that sustainability outcomes are co-produced through both system-level structures and individual agency.

We also incorporated empirical grounding by referencing national regulations, stakeholder tensions, and implementation gaps—thereby strengthening the manuscript’s identity as a research article rather than a conceptual review. These revisions reflect the deeper institutional and behavioral dynamics underpinning the dual-pathway framework introduced in the study, "3.3 Behavioral Integration Themes”. The changes can be found in lines 651-817 on pages 17-20 as follows:

This subsection interprets the behavioral dimensions of sustainability as reflected in the 1,339 coded stakeholder remarks. Four thematic pillars emerged under the behavioral pathway: Attitude Toward Sustainability, Norms and Social Trust, Stakeholder Engagement, and Motivation and Empowerment. As visualized in Figure 2, these four pillars represent the right-hand stream of the dual-pathway framework introduced in Figure 3, emphasizing the psychosocial and relational mechanisms that influence sustainability transitions in post-mining regions. Each of these pillars corresponds to a distinct parent node described in Appendix A, with granular subthemes elaborated in Appendix C—ranging from normative alignment and trust-building to empowerment gaps and stakeholder fatigue.

… (intentionally cut)

Having examined the institutional frameworks and behavioral dynamics underpinning sustainability in post-mining landscapes, the analysis now turns to the cross-cutting tensions and stakeholder contradictions that complicate the transformation process. While the dual-pathway model provides a structured lens for interpreting readiness, real-world implementation is often hindered by overlapping mandates, misaligned incentives, and conflicting stakeholder interests. These frictions do not sit neatly within either institutional or behavioral domains, but rather emerge at their intersections—where policies encounter practice, expectations clash with capacity, and legitimacy is tested by performance. Subsection 3.4 explores these areas of tension, drawing on NVivo-coded remarks that reveal how fragmented governance, elite capture, trust deficits, and procedural inconsistencies disrupt the coherence and sustainability of post-mining development efforts.

Comment 4: Conclusions and Policy Recommendation: this section also reflects the results of the dissertation research to a greater extent, rather than a scientific article. In general, the author’s conclusions and findings appear quite general, since they are not supported by either an analysis of the problem (which should have been given in Section 2) or an example of a successful case (absent from Section 3).

Response 4: We appreciate this important feedback and have taken substantial steps to address it. We agree.

In the revised manuscript, the Conclusions and Policy Recommendation section (now Section 4) has been restructured to reflect a more concise and scientifically grounded synthesis rather than a dissertation-style summary. The changes can be found in lines 1164-1205 on page 28 as follows:

4. Conclusions and Policy Recommendation

This section consolidates the article’s core contributions by synthesizing the key empirical patterns, theoretical insights, and strategic policy implications derived from the study. Anchored in a dual-pathway framework, it highlights the interplay between institutional integration and behavioral readiness in shaping post-mining sustainability. It also outlines forward-looking directions for research, governance, and practice.

Summary of Key Findings. The findings affirm that sustainability in post-mining landscapes is not achieved through isolated technical interventions but through the synergistic integration of institutional design and behavioral transformation. Drawing on a qualitative meta-synthesis of 1,339 literature-based stakeholder remarks, the study developed a dual-pathway model grounded in both theory and field-oriented observations. Case insights from Sulawesi illustrate recurring challenges—such as land legitimacy disputes, procedural CSR implementation, and community mistrust—that consistently undermine sustainability goals. Conversely, the study also revealed how participatory governance, co-produced planning, and community-based agroecological livelihoods (particularly cacao farming) act as restorative mechanisms that rebuild trust, legitimacy, and empowerment from the ground up.

Theoretical Contributions. This study contributes to sustainability theory by refining and applying a dual-pathway integration model, rooted in Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). The framework advances beyond conventional linear models of post-mining recovery by proposing a dynamic, co-produced model that integrates governance structures with psychosocial enablers such as motivation, trust, and perceived fairness. It formalizes how institutional instruments—like CSR co-financing, land compensation, and governance alignment—must interact with behavioral factors such as agency, participation, and norm internalization to enable transformation. The result is a scalable, multidimensional framework applicable to post-mining reclamation, sustainable development, and community empowerment in diverse contexts.

Practical Policy Recommendations. The study proposes the following actionable strategies for policymakers, CSR planners, and development agencies:

• Anchor post-mining recovery in agroecological and community-driven livelihood systems, such as cacao-based cooperatives, to generate economic and environmental resilience.
• Align land compensation mechanisms with legitimacy frameworks, ensuring transparency, consent, and spatial justice in post-mining land redistribution.
• Co-design CSR initiatives through inclusive, multi-stakeholder processes, minimizing elite capture and enhancing community ownership.
• Establish local empowerment institutions (e.g., cooperatives, training centers, or participatory councils) as long-term platforms for behavioral transformation and livelihood restoration.

These recommendations support a shift from extractive to regenerative development, positioning post-mining landscapes as engines of inclusive, sustainable growth.

To respond to the observation regarding lack of problem analysis in Section 2, we have strengthened Section 2.1 through 2.6 by integrating specific institutional reports, audit data (e.g., Ministry of Environment and Forestry), and academic critiques to clearly frame the problematic landscape of post-mining governance. These additions now offer a sharper analytical foundation for understanding why integrated governance frameworks are needed. Please be advised to see the lines 150-335 on pages 4-9 in Section 2 in the file of “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

Regarding the absence of case examples in Section 3, we have now included grounded empirical insights beginning at Line 615, with detailed cases from Tambakua, Matarape, Kolaka, Morowali, and Central Sulawesi (see revised Sections 3.3 and 3.5 mentioned above). These cases illustrate implementation failures in land compensation, CSR program design, and cacao-based livelihood development, and they directly support the conclusions and policy directions discussed in Section 4.

Importantly, the conclusions no longer reiterate general calls for integration. Instead, they present a novel governance framework—the TULANG Theory—derived from the Dual-Pathway empirical model. This theory synthesizes institutional and behavioral drivers of transformation and offers practical, actionable strategies for policymaking, performance monitoring, and inter-agency collaboration. The revised conclusion thus delivers a scientific contribution rooted in original theory-building and empirical synthesis, not merely a restatement of dissertation outcomes. The changes about TULANG Theory can be found in lines 1094-1103 on page 26.

Other Comment: This manuscript contains a fairly large number of grammatical and syntactic errors that should be corrected before promotion.

Other Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s observation. In response, we have conducted a comprehensive language review and revision across the entire manuscript to correct all identified grammatical and syntactic errors. This process included professional proofreading and refinement of sentence structures to enhance clarity, readability, and academic tone. We believe these corrections significantly improve the overall quality of the manuscript and we thank the reviewer for highlighting this important issue.

Warm regards,
Justan R. Siahaan (on behalf of all co-authors)
Corresponding Author | ORCID: 0009-0009-1623-7305
Email: jrsiahaan@yahoo.com

Attachment: Sustainability-3561819-Revised.docx

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study proposes a foundational framework for reframing sustainability in post-mining landscapes by integrating two interdependent pathways: institutional mechanisms and behavioral readiness.

The study contributes to both Stakeholder Theory and Legitimacy Theory, offering empirical grounding for how trust, participation, and local belief systems shape the adoption and effectiveness of sustainability initiatives. A set of policy recommendations is also presented to guide multi-actor governance, participatory land planning, and behavioral integration in post-mining development.

 

Questions and comments:

1. It is necessary to edit the title of the article and the abstract.
2. Conclusions and policy recommendations should be significantly reduced: they should be stated briefly and clearly.
3. What is the fundamental basis for clarifying the concept of sustainability in landscapes after mining?
4. Is it possible to use the proposed principles and approaches for the territories of other States?

 

It is necessary to radically revise the article.

Author Response

Comment 1: It is necessary to edit the title of the article and the abstract.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree.

In response, we have revised both the title and the abstract of the manuscript to improve clarity, precision, and alignment with the study’s core contributions. The new title more accurately reflects the theoretical innovation and the dual-pathway framework proposed in the paper, while the abstract has been edited to explicitly include the purpose, object and subject, main methods, and a brief statement of limitations, as suggested. These revisions can be found in: line 2-3 and line 9-23 on page 1 as follows:

The Dual-Pathway Framework for Post-Mining Sustainability: Institutional and Behavioral Integration in Indonesia

Sustainability in post-mining landscapes has left a critical governance challenge in resource-rich countries such as Indonesia, where extraction leaves communities economically vulnerable and environments degraded. This study aims to develop and validate a dual-pathway framework for post-mining sustainability by analyzing the intersection between institutional mechanisms and behavioral readiness. Drawing from a qualitative meta-synthesis of 1,339 stakeholder-derived remarks coded across 80 thematic nodes, the framework identifies ten key dimensions including land compensation, corporate social responsibility (CSR) co-financing, agroecological livelihoods, stakeholder engagement, social norms, and perceived legitimacy. Anchored in Stakeholder Theory and Legitimacy Theory, the findings reveal that sustainability is contingent not solely on technical rehabilitation, but on the synergy between policy reform, community empowerment, and cultural acceptance. While this study is grounded in secondary data synthesis, further field validation is recommended to enhance generalizability across diverse mining regions. The resulting model offers both a conceptual and operational guide for participatory governance and behavioral integration in complex post-extractive contexts with policy recommendations for inclusive, multi-actor planning in Indonesia’s mining regions.

Comment 2: Conclusions and policy recommendations should be significantly reduced: they should be stated briefly and clearly.

Response 2: Thank you for this constructive suggestion. We agree.

In response, we have significantly reduced and streamlined the conclusions and policy recommendations section to ensure it is clear, concise, and directly aligned with the study’s core findings. Redundant explanations have been removed, and the key points are now summarized in a more succinct format, focusing on actionable insights. We are confident that this revision improves the clarity and impact of the manuscript’s final section, as per your helpful guidance. The revised version can be found in Section 4: Conclusion and Policy Recommendation in lines 1164-1214 on page 28. Please be advised to see the Section 4 in the file of “Sustainability-3651819-Revised.docx”.

Comment 3: What is the fundamental basis for clarifying the concept of sustainability in landscapes after mining?

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s request for further clarity on the conceptual foundation of sustainability in post-mining landscapes. In response, the revised manuscript situates the clarification of sustainability within an integrated dual-pathway framework, grounded in both theoretical rigor and empirical synthesis.

As detailed in Subsection 2.1: Research Design and Theoretical Foundation (lines 150–203), the conceptual basis emerges from a synthesis of three core theories—Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)—combined with sustainability principles derived from the Triple Bottom Line (TBL). This integration was purposefully selected to reflect both institutional dimensions (such as legitimacy, CSR governance, and land compensation) and behavioral dynamics (such as stakeholder engagement, attitude toward sustainability, and empowerment).

Furthermore, Subsection 2.4: Operationalizing the Dual-Pathway Framework (lines 258–281) elaborates how this conceptual foundation is operationalized through two intersecting pathways:

• The institutional pathway, addressing governance structures, compensation planning, and CSR co-financing, supported by Legitimacy Theory.
• The behavioral pathway, addressing norms, motivation, and stakeholder behavior, guided by Stakeholder Theory and TPB.

This conceptual architecture is visually represented in Figure 1 (line 186) and its accompanying caption, offering a clarified, actionable understanding of sustainability not merely as ecological restoration, but as a convergence of structural reform and social readiness.

Hence, the fundamental basis for clarifying sustainability in post-mining landscapes is the dual-theory model translated into a dual-pathway framework—allowing sustainability to be understood and measured through interconnected institutional and behavioral dimensions tailored to the Indonesian post-mining context.

Comment 4: Is it possible to use the proposed principles and approaches for the territories of other States?

Response 4: Thank you for raising this critical question regarding the applicability of our framework beyond Indonesia. Yes, we believe the proposed principles and approaches are adaptable and potentially transferable to other national contexts, particularly in regions facing similar challenges related to post-mining land recovery, governance fragmentation, and community empowerment.

While the empirical foundation of the study is rooted in Indonesia’s post-mining landscape, the conceptual framework—as described in Subsection 2.1 (lines 150–203) and operationalized in Subsection 2.4 (lines 258–281)—was designed with a degree of theoretical generalizability. The dual-pathway model, combining institutional mechanisms (e.g., legitimacy, land compensation, CSR governance) with behavioral readiness (e.g., stakeholder trust, norms, and empowerment), is informed by globally recognized theories such as Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory, and the Theory of Planned Behavior.

Moreover, the analytical method used—qualitative meta-synthesis of 1,339 cross-disciplinary remarks (see Subsection 2.2–2.3, lines 204–257)—ensures that the model reflects a diverse range of governance, ecological, and social contexts, many of which are not unique to Indonesia. For instance, the governance challenges associated with land tenure, environmental compliance, and CSR co-financing are broadly shared among resource-rich countries in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

That said, we acknowledge that local adaptation would be necessary to account for distinct legal systems, cultural norms, and ecological conditions. This is discussed as a potential direction for future research in Subsection 2.7: Research Limitations and Methodological Reflection (lines 336–360), where we explicitly invite mixed-method studies in other jurisdictions to validate and localize the framework.

In summary, while our framework is context-sensitive, it offers a transferable architecture that can inform post-mining sustainability strategies in other state territories, especially when adapted through stakeholder-driven, participatory methods.

Other comment: It is necessary to radically revise the article.

Other response: We sincerely appreciate your comprehensive assessment of the manuscript. In response to your recommendation for a radical revision, we have conducted a substantive restructuring of the article, including revisions to the title, abstract, key findings, and conclusion sections, as well as improvements to thematic coherence, methodological clarity, and theoretical alignment. Each major section has been refined to ensure stronger integration between the conceptual framework, empirical synthesis, and policy implications. We believe these changes have significantly enhanced the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and contribution to the field. All major revisions have been highlighted in the revised manuscript for transparency and ease of review.

Warm regards,
Justan R. Siahaan (on behalf of all co-authors)
Corresponding Author | ORCID: 0009-0009-1623-7305
Email: jrsiahaan@yahoo.com

Attachment: Sustainability-3561819-Revised.docx

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

I am pleased to inform you that I have completed my review of the revised manuscript. It is evident that the changes made in response to the reviewers' comments have significantly enhanced the clarity and depth of your paper. The efforts you have put into addressing the concerns and suggestions have not only improved the manuscript but have also augmented its contribution to the field.

 

In light of the substantial improvements made, I believe that the manuscript is now well-prepared for publication. The revisions have effectively strengthened the arguments, enriched the data presentation, and refined the overall narrative, thereby solidifying its scholarly value.

 

Thank you for your diligence and commitment to enhancing your work. I look forward to seeing your research published and contributing to ongoing discussions in your area of expertise.

 

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good luck!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article can be accepted in the present (revised) form.