A Triple-Bottom-Line Performance Measurement Model for the Sustainability of Post-Mining Landscapes in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is written correctly. Interesting substantive considerations, properly selected literature. The empirical research concerns one country-region, but it is a correct case study. There is no explanation of why Indonesia was chosen. It is worth indicating what distinguishes this region and why it should be analyzed and the results presented. I have no other comments.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is written correctly. Interesting substantive considerations, properly selected literature. The empirical research concerns one country-region, but it is a correct case study. There is no explanation of why Indonesia was chosen. It is worth indicating what distinguishes this region and why it should be analyzed and the results presented. I have no other comments.

Authors’ Response

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments. We appreciate your recognition of the article’s substantive contributions and literature integration. Regarding your concern about the justification for selecting Indonesia as a case study, we agree that this element needed further clarification and have now revised the manuscript to explicitly explain Indonesia’s relevance and strategic importance in the context of post-mining sustainability. The changes can be found in lines 97-106 on page 3 as follows:

Indonesia provides a particularly urgent and illustrative case for post-mining sustainability due to its vast mineral wealth, decentralized governance, and rapid land-use transformation. As the world’s largest producer of nickel—a strategic mineral for the clean energy transition—Indonesia faces intensifying pressure to balance industrial growth with environmental recovery and social justice [24]. The reclamation of post-mining landscapes has become central to nationhal debates on food security, climate resilience, and community empowerment, especially in Sulawesi, where agroforestry models are being scaled as viable post-extractive livelihood solutions. These characteristics make Indonesia not only a compelling site for grounded analysis but also a model for broader sustainability challenges in the Global South.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses an interesting issue: performance measurement for sustainable post-mining land reclamation in Indonesia, based on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) land management principles. The objectives of the study are to develop a performance measurement model rooted in TBL that integrates CSR practices, institutional roles and behavioral factors, and to demonstrate this model as a compensation mechanism for land loss due to industrial expansion and to show cocoa-based reclamation as a catalyst for rural transformation.

 

To achieve the objectives, a qualitative meta-synthesis of 773 scientific and institutional notes was used, analyzed using a two-level NVivo coding structure consisting of 10 parent nodes and 8 subnodes. Five theoretical pillars—corporate social responsibility (CSR), stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, theory of planned behavior (TPB), and the TBL approach—inform the analysis and support the development of a new conceptual framework: TILANG (Triple Baseline Integrated Land Management).

The results of the empirical part have been correctly described.

Conclusions have been presented regarding the described model, including the recognition of post-mining land as compensatory assets in spatial planning and agrarian reform, harmonization of mine closure procedures and CSR programs. However, this fragment should be expanded, it is quite synthetic.

The literature used is rich and relevant.

I have a few technical comments:

- the source, i.e. my own work, should be provided under tables or figures,

- the article is long - it may be worth considering shortening it, e.g. by introducing some graphic syntheses (tables) in part 4. Finding and Discussion (pages 17 to 52),

- the accuracy of the numbers must be checked: line 135 "with 8 child nodes each" and line 237 "sustainability—and 80 child nodes".

Best regards

Author Response

Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of the article’s relevance, methodological design, and theoretical integration. Below we respond point-by-point to your comments and suggestions for improvement.

Reviewer Comment 1:

Conclusions have been presented regarding the described model, including the recognition of post-mining land as compensatory assets in spatial planning and agrarian reform, harmonization of mine closure procedures and CSR programs. However, this fragment should be expanded, it is quite synthetic.

Authors Response-1:

We appreciate your suggestion to expand the conclusion. In the revised manuscript, we have elaborated this section to include a more comprehensive synthesis of findings, the broader implications of the TILANG model, and its applicability as a compensatory and performance-based governance mechanism. We also strengthened the articulation of how cocoa-based reclamation catalyzes both ecological regeneration and livelihood transformation. To enhance coherence and narrative flow, we have restructured the manuscript by integrating the original Section 3 (Results) and Section 4 (Findings and Discussion) into a unified Section 3 (Results and Discussion). Additionally, the original Section 5 (Conclusion and Policy Implication) has been repositioned as the new Section 4 (Conclusion), now expanded to include theoretical contributions, policy recommendations, and directions for future research.

Expanded Section 4 (Conclusion and Policy Recommendation), particularly lines 721–768, on pages 19-20 to deliver a more comprehensive synthesis of the TILANG Framework. The revised section now elaborates on its six theoretical pillars (CSR, TPB, Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory, TBL, and Governance), the six implementation principles (Trust, Inclusivity, Legitimacy, Alignment, Norms, and Governance), and its role in linking ecological restoration with rural transformation. We also added clearer policy recommendations, practical applications, and future research directions to broaden the scope and strategic relevance of the conclusion.

We kindly invite you to review lines 719–773 on pages 19–20 of the revised manuscript, where the TILANG Framework’s conceptual depth, implementation principles, and future research directions are now clearly articulated.

Reviewer Comment 2:

“- the source, i.e. my own work, should be provided under tables or figures.”

Authors Response-2:

Thank you for your comment. We have carefully reviewed all tables and figures in the manuscript and confirm that all visuals—Table 1 (lines 343-344 on page 9), Figure 1 (lines 235-236 on page 6), Figure 2 (lines 372-373 on page 10), and Figure 3 (lines 710-711 on page 18)—are original creations by the authors based on the synthesized findings from our NVivo-assisted meta-synthesis. Accordingly, each has been labeled as “Source: Authors’ elaboration” in the revised captions. These changes can be found as follows:

• (For Table 1) Source: Authors’ elaboration based on NVivo-coded qualitative synthesis (n = 773).

• (For Figure 1) Source: Authors’ conceptual design based on CSR, TBL, TPB, Stakeholder Theory, and Legitimacy Theory.

• (For Figure 2) Source: Authors’ performance model visualization derived from thematic synthesis.

• (For Figure 3) Source: Authors’ synthesized framework (TILANG) based on empirical and theoretical integration.

Reviewer Comment-3:

The article is long - it may be worth considering shortening it, e.g. by introducing some graphic syntheses (tables) in part 4. Finding and Discussion

Authors Response-3:

We appreciate the suggestion to enhance visual synthesis. While Table 1 (line 342) was already included in the original manuscript as a summary of the NVivo-coded thematic results, we have now updated its caption to include a proper source attribution. This clarifies that the table is based on the authors’ original synthesis of 773 coded remarks. We have also revised the captions for Figures 1 and 2 to reflect their conceptual basis and authorship, while Figure 3 has been both captioned and graphically refined to communicate the TILANG Framework more clearly. The changes can be found as follows:

(Lines 343-344 on page 9) Table 1. Nvivo-Thematic Summary of Sustainability Enablers in Post-Mining Land. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on NVivo-coded qualitative synthesis (n = 773)

(Lines 230-236 on page 6) Figure 1. Conceptual Research Framework. This framework illustrates how Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) contributes to environmental, social, and economic outcomes through the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) lens. These outcomes are shaped and validated through three interlinked theories—Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory (social acceptance), and the Theory of Planned Behavior (community adoption)—which collectively underpin the transition toward sustainable cacao agriculture. Source: Authors’ conceptual design based on CSR, TBL, TPB, Stakeholder Theory, and Legitimacy Theory.

(Lines 369-373 on page 10) Figure 2. Triple Bottom Line-Based Performance Measurement Model. This model links CSR, stakeholder engagement, and behavioral change to sustainability outcomes across environmental, economic, and social domains, supporting cacao-based reclamation on post-mining land. Source: Authors’ performance model visualization derived from thematic synthesis.

(Lines 706-711 on page 18) Figure 3. TILANG Framework – Triple Bottom Line Integrated Land Governance. The framework integrates institutional provisioning, behavioral enablement, and performance outcomes through a central logic of sustainability co-production. It is operationalized by six principles: Trust, Inclusivity, Legitimacy, Alignment, Norms, and Governance. Source: Authors’ synthesized framework (TILANG) based on empirical and theoretical integration.

Reviewer Comment-4:

The accuracy of the numbers must be checked: line 135 'with 8 child nodes each' and line 237 'sustainability—and 80 child nodes'

Authors Response-4:

Thank you for catching this inconsistency. We have reviewed and corrected the explanation of our coding structure. The revised manuscript now consistently states that the coding framework consists of 10 parent nodes, each with 8 child nodes, totaling exactly 80 child nodes (see lines 182–183 and 422-426). This uniform structure is further clarified in Appendix A and B, which provide detailed lists and conceptual definitions. These changes can be found in the two paragraphs as follows:

The remark dataset was verified by paragraph count, ensuring exactly 773 unique entries. A total of 773 qualitative remarks were synthesized from academic and institutional sources. A two-level node structure was applied, comprising 10 parent nodes with exactly 8 child nodes each, totaling 80 child codes. This uniform architecture ensured thematic balance and allowed for systematic cross-comparison across key sustainability dimensions such as institutional roles, behavioral drivers, and performance outcomes (Lines 179-185 on page 5).

These 80 child nodes reflect a comprehensive coding taxonomy that facilitated both thematic analysis and performance model design. The complete list and structure of all parent and child nodes are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B. Appendix A contains conceptual definitions for the ten parent nodes, while Appendix B presents a tabulated list of the 80 child nodes arranged under their respective categories. Together, these appendices offer a clear reference to the analytical framework that supports the model’s development. This coding framework—comprising a hierarchy of 10 parent nodes and 80 child nodes—ensures comprehensive thematic coverage and analytical consistency across institutional, behavioral, environmental, and economic dimensions of post-mining sustainability. With this architecture and conceptual foundation in place, the subsequent analytical procedures were undertaken in a structured sequence, as outlined in the following subsections. (Lines 301-312 on page 8).

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful and encouraging feedback. The refinements made in response to your review have strengthened both the empirical clarity and theoretical coherence of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my view, the manuscript is well-written, and the scientific inputs and methodologies are robust, the results and discussion are authentic; thus, it could be accepted for publication after minor suggestions:

Define abbreviations (e.g., TBL, KPI) upon first use in the main text.

Avoid passive voice where active voice improves clarity.

Use consistent terms throughout the paper. For instance, ensure that “post-mining landscapes,” “post-mined lands,” and “rehabilitated mining areas” are used consistently. 

Author Response

Reviewer Comment-1:

Define abbreviations (e.g., TBL, KPI) upon first use in the main text.

Authors' Response-1:

Thank you for this suggestion. We have reviewed the manuscript thoroughly and ensured that all key abbreviations—such as TBL (Triple Bottom Line), TPB (Theory of Planned Behavior), and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)—are defined upon their first use in the main text. We also wish to clarify that while the manuscript discusses performance measurement models, the specific term Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is not used in the current version. Therefore, no abbreviation was introduced for it. The analysis emphasizes broader sustainability outcomes consistent with the TILANG Framework, rather than detailed KPI systems. Abbreviations have been defined on first mention in the Abstract, Introduction, and Methodology sections as follows:

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has also emerged as a critical institutional mechanism for supporting sustainability in post-mining zones (Lines 20, 55-56).

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) complements these insights by examining how smallholder Fisher farmers decide to adopt sustainable cacao farming. TPB holds that behavior is influenced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived control (Lines 70-72). 

Despite these overlapping mandates, policy implementation remains disjointed due to gaps in coordination and accountability. Recognizing these challenges, this study adopts the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework to evaluate sustainability outcomes across environmental, social, and economic dimensions (Lines 82-85).

Reviewer Comment-2:

Avoid passive voice where active voice improves clarity.

Authors' Response-2:

We appreciate this editorial suggestion. The manuscript has been reviewed for clarity and voice. We revised several sentences—particularly in the Introduction (lines 34–130) and throughout the newly integrated Section 3 (Results and Discussion)—to replace passive constructions with active voice where appropriate. These adjustments were made carefully to maintain scientific accuracy while improving flow and readability.

Action Taken in Manuscript:
Instances of passive voice were revised to active voice for improved clarity, especially in sections discussing data interpretation, stakeholder roles, and policy implications.

Reviewer Comment-3:

Use consistent terms throughout the paper. For instance, ensure that “post-mining landscapes,” “post-mined lands,” and “rehabilitated mining areas” are used consistently

Authors' Response-3

Thank you for identifying this important point. We have conducted a consistency review and standardized the terminology across the manuscript. We primarily use the term “post-mining landscapes” to maintain uniformity, while still allowing slight variations where necessary for contextual emphasis (e.g., “rehabilitated mining areas” when referring to specific interventions).

Action Taken in Manuscript: Terminology such as “post-mined lands” and “rehabilitated mining areas” has been aligned to “post-mining landscapes” throughout the document, except where variations improve contextual clarity.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) Please note the basic requirements of MDPI's formatting guidelines for scientific papers. In the abstract, the affiliations from the first to the sixth author are the same, and the ORCID, corresponding author, and abstract formats are also incorrect.

(2) Generally speaking, there should be a good correspondence between the abstract and the keywords, therefore, it would be better if the keyword "sustainable cacao agriculture" and "land-use transformation" could be mentioned in the abstract.

(3) Please concisely summarize the core research findings of this paper in abstract, preferably using numbered bullet points for clarity.

(4) What is the intended meaning of the sentence in lines 65-66 ("while...sustainability [15]")?

(5) Lines 75-97: These two paragraphs should be integrated, reorganized, and refined.   

(6) The phrase in Lines 103-104 ("Grounded in 773 qualitative insights") appears rather abrupt. After reading this phrase, readers are unclear about what the author intends to convey. Please revise and improve it.

(7) Section2, Materials and Methods, should first provide necessary background information on the scope, location, and agricultural development status of the study area.

(8) Lines 158-197: It is recommended that these three paragraphs be elaborated in greater depth within the introduction. This will significantly enhance the logicality, scientific rigor, and innovativeness of this study.

(9) Lines 125-126: The "773 synthesized remarks" lack sufficient contextual and background knowledge support, leaving readers perplexed.

(10) Sections 2.3 and 2.4 seem more appropriate to be placed in the Discussion section.

(11) Currently, the results analysis section includes an excessive number of research findings (more than a dozen), which complicates the presentation. Additionally, the research paradigms underlying these findings are largely redundant. It is advisable to restructure this section by applying a clear academic framework, thereby emphasizing the key research outcomes of the paper. Similarly, the discussion section is overly convoluted and lacks distinction from the results analysis. To improve clarity, it should be refined to enhance the logical coherence and scientific rigor of its arguments. At present, the study reads more as a research report rather than a scholarly article.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their insightful and constructive suggestions, which have significantly improved the clarity and structure of our manuscript. Although we understand the reviewer preferred to remain anonymous, we are deeply grateful for their contribution to this publication process.

We respect the reviewer's decision to remain anonymous, but would warmly welcome their signature should they choose to acknowledge their contribution following this revised version:

Reviewer Comment-1:

Please note the basic requirements of MDPI's formatting guidelines for scientific papers. In the abstract, the affiliations from the first to the sixth author are the same, and the ORCID, corresponding author, and abstract formats are also incorrect.

Authors' Response-1:

We fully agree with the reviewer’s comment regarding the formatting issues related to author affiliations, ORCID inclusion, and abstract structure. In response:

• The affiliations of all six authors have been revised and now follow MDPI’s formatting standards. Each author is assigned a unique superscript corresponding to their departmental or disciplinary unit at Hasanuddin University.
• Each author’s email address is listed alongside their affiliation.
• The corresponding author (Justan Riduan Siahaan) is now clearly identified, and the ORCID iD (https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1623-7305) is properly included in the “Correspondence” line, as per MDPI guidelines.
• We have revised the abstract to ensure compliance with MDPI’s formatting norms, including clearer structure and alignment with the updated keywords.
• Finally, all necessary corrections have also been reflected in the metadata within the MDPI SuSy system, ensuring full consistency between the manuscript and submission platform.

The changes can about authorships can be found in lines 4-12 on page 1 as follows:

Justan Riduan Siahaan^1*, Gagaring Pagalung^2*, Eymal Bahsar Demmallino³, Abrar Saleng⁴, Andi Amran Sulaiman⁵ and Nadhirah Nagu⁶

¹ Department of Development Studies, Hasanuddin University, Makassar 90245, Indonesia; jrsiahaan@tiraas.id

² Department of Economics and Business, Hasanuddin University, Makassar 90245, Indonesia; gpagalung@gmail.com

³ Department of Environmental Studies, Hasanuddin University, Makassar 90245, Indonesia; demmallino2017@gmail.com

⁴ Department of Law, Hasanuddin University, Makassar 90245, Indonesia; abrarsaleng@yahoo.com

⁵ Department of Agribusiness, Hasanuddin University, Makassar 90245, Indonesia; aasulaiman@tiraas.id

⁶ Department of Economics and Business, Hasanuddin University, Makassar 90245, Indonesia; nadhirahnagu.unhas@gmail.com

• Correspondence: ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1623-7305; gpagalung@gmail.com

The changes about abstracts can be found in lines 13-130 on page 1 as follows:

Abstract: Indonesia’s post-mining landscapes require an integrated governance approach to ensure equitable and sustainable reclamation. This study aimed at developing and evaluating the TILANG Framework (Triple Bottom Line Integrated Land Governance) as a multidimensional model that aligns ecological restoration, community empowerment, and institutional accountability. Drawing on a meta-synthesis of 773 academic and institutional remarks coded using NVivo 12, the study identifies sustainable cacao agriculture as a viable compensation mechanism that enhances livelihood recovery while restoring degraded land. The framework integrates six foundational theoretical components—Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Triple Bottom Line (TBL), and multi-level governance—and is operationalized through six implementation principles: Trust, Inclusivity, Legitimacy, Alignment, Norms, and Governance. The findings support performance-based land reclamation by embedding behavioral readiness and institutional co-financing into sustainability planning. This model is particularly relevant to Indonesia’s ongoing land-use transformation, where post-extractive zones are transitioning toward agroecological and community-centered recovery. The study finds that: (1) reframing land compensation as a restorative, performance-based mechanism enables more legitimate and inclusive post-mining governance; (2) sustainable cacao agriculture emerges as a viable and socially acceptable strategy for ecological recovery and rural livelihood revitalization; and (3) the TILANG Framework supports land-use transformation by integrating CSR, behavioral readiness, and multi-level governance into a cohesive performance model.

Reviewer Comment-2:

Generally speaking, there should be a good correspondence between the abstract and the keywords, therefore, it would be better if the keyword "sustainable cacao agriculture" and "land-use transformation" could be mentioned in the abstract.

Authors' Response-2:

We fully agree with the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the need for alignment between the abstract and the selected keywords. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable recommendation, which has improved the precision and completeness of our abstract. In response:

• We have carefully revised the abstract to explicitly include the terms “sustainable cacao agriculture” and “land-use transformation”.
• These terms are now integrated meaningfully into the background, purpose, and findings sections of the abstract to reflect their central role in the study.
• This revision strengthens the thematic coherence between the abstract and the final five keywords and enhances the clarity and discoverability of the manuscript in academic databases.

As seen in the Abstract, the keyword sustainable cacao agriculture has been stated in line 18 and the keyword land-use transformation in line 31 on page 1.

Reviewer Comment-3:

Please concisely summarize the core research findings of this paper in abstract, preferably using numbered bullet points for clarity.

Authors' Response-3:

We agree with the reviewer’s recommendation to provide a concise summary of the core research findings in the abstract using a structured format. This addition improves the clarity and accessibility of the abstract, particularly for interdisciplinary readers, by highlighting the most critical insights in a direct and digestible form. We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion to enhance readability and have accordingly included a numbered list of key empirical findings in the revised abstract. The changes can be found in lines 25-32 as follows:

The study finds that: (1) reframing land compensation as a restorative, performance-based mechanism enables more legitimate and inclusive post-mining governance; (2) sustainable cacao agriculture emerges as a viable and socially acceptable strategy for ecological recovery and rural livelihood revitalization; and (3) the TILANG Framework supports land-use transformation by integrating CSR, behavioral readiness, and multi-level governance into a cohesive performance model.

Reviewer Comment-4:

What is the intended meaning of the sentence in lines 65-66 ("while...sustainability [15]")?

Authors' Response-4:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful request for clarification. The original sentence—“Legitimacy Theory underlines the importance of public trust and institutional credibility for project sustainability”—was intended to highlight how community perceptions of institutional legitimacy influence long-term success in reclamation initiatives. To enhance clarity, we have revised the sentence in line 67-68 on page as follows:

Legitimacy Theory underlines that public trust in institutions and their perceived credibility are essential for sustaining long-term support, compliance, and continuity in reclamation projects. 

Reviewer Comment-5:

Lines 75-97: These two paragraphs should be integrated, reorganized, and refined.

We thank the reviewer for the helpful suggestion to improve the structure and clarity of Lines 75–97. We agree that the original paragraphs could be reorganized to enhance coherence and better communicate the logic of institutional fragmentation, theoretical framework adoption, and model contribution. In response, we have integrated the two paragraphs into a more structured and fluid narrative. The revised version emphasizes (a) the institutional context and challenges of post-mining governance, (b) the rationale for adopting the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework, and (c) the dual-purpose contribution of the proposed model. We believe this restructuring improves the logical flow and enhances the readability of the section. The changes can be found in lines 78-100 on pages 2-3 as follows:

Government agencies play complementary but often fragmented roles in post-mining land governance. The Ministry of Forestry enforces restoration standards, while the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) monitors mine closure compliance. The Ministry of Agriculture supports land conversion through fertility mapping, agroforestry promotion, and extension services [19, 20]. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry continues to advocate for integrated approaches to land rehabilitation and climate resilience [21]. Despite these overlapping mandates, policy implementation remains disjointed due to gaps in coordination and accountability. Recognizing these challenges, this study adopts the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework to evaluate sustainability outcomes across environmental, social, and economic dimensions [22, 23]. The framework is validated through over 200 literature-based references and incorporates measures such as soil health, female farmer participation, and income diversification. Its adaptability makes it especially suitable for capturing the nuances of cacao-based reclamation [24]. This study serves a dual purpose. First, it introduces a performance measurement model rooted in the TBL framework that integrates Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices, institutional dynamics, and behavioral drivers. The model is positioned as a strategic response to Indonesia’s land-use transitions amid industrial and decentralization pressures. Second, it reframes cacao cultivation not merely as an environmental sustainability tool but as a compensatory mechanism for land loss and a catalyst for rural transformation. By linking ecological recovery with economic opportunity and trust-building, the model promotes sustainable governance. Embedding TBL indicators within a framework informed by CSR, TPB, and stakeholder engagement makes it replicable and actionable in other post-mining regions.

Reviewer Comment-6:

The phrase in Lines 103-104 ("Grounded in 773 qualitative insights") appears rather abrupt. After reading this phrase, readers are unclear about what the author intends to convey. Please revise and improve it.

Authors' Response-6:

We thank the reviewer for the helpful observation regarding the phrasing of “Grounded in 773 qualitative insights,” and we agree that the original sentence was abrupt and lacked sufficient context. To improve clarity and flow, we have revised the sentence to better explain the origin, methodological basis, and analytical role of the qualitative insights within the study, ensuring a smoother and more informative transition for readers. To address this, we have revised the sentence in line 131-134 on page 3 as follows:

Grounded in 773 literature-derived qualitative remarks coded using NVivo software, this study synthesizes multi-level stakeholder discourse to inform the development of a performance measurement model for sustainable post-mining land reclamation.

Authors' Response-7:

Section2, Materials and Methods, should first provide necessary background information on the scope, location, and agricultural development status of the study area.

Authors' Response-7:

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to contextualize the study area within the Materials and Methods section. In response:

• We have added a concise subsection at the beginning of Section 2 titled “Study Scope and Agricultural Context”, which provides background on the geographic regions covered (e.g., Southeast Sulawesi), their agricultural characteristics, and their post-mining challenges.
• This addition offers clarity regarding the empirical scope and enhances the methodological grounding of the study.

These changes can be found in lines 147-155 on page 4 as follows:

This study draws particular attention to post-mining districts in Southeast Sulawesi, including Kolaka, Konawe, and Morowali, where emerging cocoa‑based land recovery initiatives have begun to take shape. These efforts reflect early-stage experimentation by local governments, CSR programs, and non-profit initiatives aiming to integrate agroforestry and cacao cultivation into post-mining rehabilitation strategies. For example, cocoa revitalization in Kolaka and East Kolaka has been supported through agroforestry pilot programs involving thousands of farmers and the planting of tens of thousands of trees [25]. Additionally, existing CSR initiatives—such as those by PT IMIP in Bahodopi, Morowali—have begun to introduce agroforestry and community empowerment models, underscoring the institutional momentum behind sustainable land-use [26].

Reviewer Comment-8:

Lines 158-197: It is recommended that these three paragraphs be elaborated in greater depth within the introduction. This will significantly enhance the logicality, scientific rigor, and innovativeness of this study.

Authors' Response-8:

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to strengthen the introductory section by expanding the conceptual and contextual rationale found in Lines 158–197. Accordingly:

• We have reorganized and relocated these key insights into the latter part of the Introduction section to ensure the reader is fully oriented before the methodology is presented.
• These paragraphs now include deeper discussion of post-mining governance gaps, land-use conflicts, and the strategic potential of cocoa-based agroforestry as a response.
• This restructuring enhances the study’s intellectual flow and better establishes its theoretical and policy relevance.

These changes can be found in lines 111-125 on page 3 as follows:

Indonesia’s post-mining regions—particularly in Sulawesi—face an urgent convergence of environmental degradation, institutional fragmentation, and socio-economic displacement. Despite regulatory frameworks mandating reclamation, implementation on the ground remains uneven, often hindered by overlapping mandates and limited coordination among key agencies such as the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM), Ministry of Forestry and Environment (KLHK), and Ministry of Agriculture. In response to these governance gaps, several districts—Kolaka, Konawe, and Morowali—have begun piloting cocoa-based agroforestry as an adaptive land recovery strategy, supported by community-driven CSR models and agroecological initiatives [25]. These localized innovations offer more than ecological benefits; they illustrate how integrated approaches to performance, trust, and participation can inform broader policy reform. Drawing from these insights, this study sets out to develop the TILANG Framework (Triple-Bottom-Line Integrated Land Governance)—a performance-based model designed to align stakeholder trust, institutional legitimacy, and behavioral readiness in the governance of post-mining land [26].

Reviewer Comment-9:

Lines 125-126: The "773 synthesized remarks" lack sufficient contextual and background knowledge support, leaving readers perplexed.

Authors' Response-9:

Thank you for this valuable observation. We agree that the original mention of the “773 synthesized remarks” required additional explanation. In the revised manuscript:

• We have expanded this portion to clarify that the 773 remarks were derived from a structured qualitative meta-synthesis of academic and institutional sources.
• We now provide additional context about the types of sources used, the coding framework applied in NVivo, and how these remarks were thematically clustered into 10 parent and 80 child nodes.
• This clarification improves transparency and provides a more solid basis for the findings that follow.

These changes can be found in line 156-174 on page 4 as follows:

This study was designed as a qualitative meta-synthesis, integrating literature and institutional insights to develop a performance measurement framework for sustainable post-mining land governance. The approach was selected to enable the extraction of conceptual patterns from a wide range of data sources—including academic articles, regulatory documents, policy briefs, and CSR reports—focused on land-use transformation in Indonesia’s post-mining landscapes.

Rather than conducting primary interviews or field experiments, the study synthesized 773 qualitative remarks derived from secondary materials that reflect expert perspectives, institutional guidelines, and scholarly evaluations. The aim was to capture not only formal policy discourses but also emerging grassroots narratives, particularly those related to sustainable cacao agriculture and stakeholder collaboration.

This design was rooted in the interpretive logic of the TILANG Framework (Triple-Bottom-Line Integrated Land Governance), which integrates Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Stakeholder Theory, and Legitimacy Theory. These theoretical foundations informed the thematic direction of the coding structure and ensured that the synthesis remained conceptually grounded and policy-relevant.

By focusing on how sustainability performance can be measured across ecological, social, and economic dimensions, this research approach seeks to bridge the gap between theoretical modeling and institutional practice in post-mining land recovery.

Authors' Response-10:

Sections 2.3 and 2.4 seem more appropriate to be placed in the Discussion section.

Authors' Response-10:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful recommendation. Upon review, we agree that Sections 2.3 and 2.4, which elaborate the theoretical pillars and present the TILANG Framework, are more interpretive than procedural and are better suited for inclusion within the Discussion section. Accordingly:

• We have relocated the content of Sections 2.3 and 2.4 into the early portion of the revised Discussion section (now Section 3.1–3.2).
• This repositioning improves the logical separation between the empirical methodology and theoretical reflection, aligning the manuscript structure more closely with MDPI’s scholarly expectations.
• As a result, the Materials and Methods section now focuses strictly on the data sources, synthesis procedures, and NVivo-based coding logic, while the Discussion section interprets findings in light of the theoretical framework.

The changes can be found in Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 line 460-495 on pages 12-13 as follows:

3.1. Empirical Orientation and Thematic Focus

This section presents three core thematic findings derived from a qualitative meta-synthesis of 773 institutional and academic remarks, systematically coded into 10 parent nodes and 80 child nodes using NVivo 12. These themes reflect critical intersections between institutional roles, community behavior, and sustainability performance in post-mining landscapes. Rather than examining issues in isolation, the findings are organized to illuminate how governance structures, economic revitalization strategies, and community empowerment mechanisms interact in practice. Together, they provide the empirical grounding for the development of an integrated land governance framework designed to address Indonesia’s fragmented sustainability landscape.

3.2. Theoretical Interpretation: Guiding Frameworks for Post-Mining Sustainability

To interpret the empirical patterns presented in Section 3.1, this study draws on five foundational theoretical perspectives: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), and the Triple Bottom Line (TBL). These theories provide conceptual scaffolding for analyzing how institutional, behavioral, and performance-related dimensions converge in post-mining transformation.

• CSR offers insight into the evolving role of private sector responsibility, particularly in co-financing sustainable recovery initiatives beyond regulatory compliance.
• Stakeholder Theory explains the significance of multi-actor coordination—linking state agencies, local communities, and private entities—in shaping inclusive and responsive governance.
• Legitimacy Theory emphasizes the need for institutional credibility, participatory mechanisms, and social acceptance in sustaining long-term reclamation programs.
• TPB contributes a behavioral lens to assess individual and collective drivers such as perceived control, peer influence, and trust in institutions.
• TBL provides a holistic metric framework for evaluating sustainability outcomes across environmental, economic, and social domains.

Rather than applying each theory in isolation, these perspectives collectively support a layered interpretation of the data. They allow the analysis to trace how governance structures, behavioral motivations, and performance metrics intersect across the thematic findings.

Reviewer Comment-11:

) Currently, the results analysis section includes an excessive number of research findings (more than a dozen), which complicates the presentation. Additionally, the research paradigms underlying these findings are largely redundant. It is advisable to restructure this section by applying a clear academic framework, thereby emphasizing the key research outcomes of the paper. Similarly, the discussion section is overly convoluted and lacks distinction from the results analysis. To improve clarity, it should be refined to enhance the logical coherence and scientific rigor of its arguments. At present, the study reads more as a research report rather than a scholarly article.

Authors' Response-11:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this detailed and constructive critique. We agree that the original version of the manuscript presented an overly segmented structure in the results and discussion sections, which could overwhelm readers and obscure the core contributions of the study. In response, we have undertaken a significant restructuring of the findings and discussion to enhance logical coherence, scholarly rigor, and alignment with the proposed TILANG Framework.

Specifically, we have:

• Integrated the Results and Discussion into a single cohesive section (Section 3),
• Consolidated the findings into five interdependent thematic clusters, each corresponding to key pillars of the TILANG Framework: institutional integration, behavioral readiness, and triple-bottom-line (TBL) outcomes,
• Clarified the conceptual mapping of each thematic cluster to the performance-based dimensions of the TILANG Framework, thereby reducing overlap and emphasizing theoretical significance.

The five revised thematic clusters are as follows:

1. Institutional Coordination – aligned with the Institutional Integration pillar of the framework, highlighting governance gaps, role distribution, and coordination needs;
2. CSR and Land Compensation – aligned with both Institutional Integration and TBL Outcomes, reflecting financing mechanisms and spatial justice initiatives;
3. Cacao-Based Sustainability – mapped directly to TBL Outcomes, showcasing ecological restoration and economic revitalization via cocoa agroforestry;
4. Community Empowerment – corresponds to Behavioral Readiness, focusing on capacity, trust, norms, and farmer engagement;
5. Triple Bottom Line Impact – synthesizes the three core pillars into actionable indicators of sustainability performance, linking institutional legitimacy, behavioral change, and outcome measurement.

This reorganization provides a more academic structure for interpreting the empirical data while retaining the richness of the stakeholder-derived insights. Furthermore, a transition paragraph at the beginning of Section 3.3 has been added to clarify this restructuring approach and its alignment with the TILANG Framework.

We believe these changes directly address the reviewer’s concerns and significantly enhance the manuscript’s contribution as a conceptual and applied study in post-mining sustainability.

The full restructuring described above is now reflected in Section 3.3 -3.7 (Thematic Findings Aligned with the TILANG Framework) and the five subsections that follow. This newly organized structure replaces the previous segmented results and discussion sections, integrating empirical patterns and conceptual interpretation in a cohesive and theory-informed manner. The transition paragraph at the beginning of Section 3.3 explicitly outlines this structural change for the reader, ensuring transparency in the reorganization process. Each thematic cluster now corresponds directly to a pillar of the TILANG Framework and is presented in a way that emphasizes theoretical coherence and policy relevance. We kindly invite the reviewer to refer to lines 496–721 (pages 13–18) of the revised manuscript for a full view of this updated structure and its alignment with the core pillars of institutional integration, behavioral readiness, and triple-bottom-line outcomes.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In comparison to its previous iteration, we are pleased to observe that the author has implemented modifications and enhancements across the majority of the content. Nevertheless, there remain some aspects which necessitate further refinement.

(1) We have noted that the author has updated information such as the name, affiliation, and email address. However, there is still a notable inconsistency between the ORCID annotation method and the standard format commonly used by MDPI. Please make the appropriate revisions accordingly.

(2) We noted that TPB and TBL only appeared once in the abstract, so these two abbreviations are unnecessary in the abstract.

(3) There is no punctuation between "Coding Framework Development" (line 329) and "Thematic Coding and Meta-Synthesis" (line 338) and the text that follows them.

(4) It is recommended to separate the results and discussion in Section 3 into two sections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Reviewer Comment-1: ORCID annotation method is not in line with MDPI's format.

Authors’ Response-1:

We have corrected the ORCID format by placing the full hyperlink (https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1623-7305) below the author’s name as per MDPI standards. The label “ORCID:” has been removed to ensure conformity. The changes can be found in line 12 on page 1 as follows:

*Correspondence: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1623-7305; gpagalung@gmail.com

Reviewer Comment-2: ORCID annotation method is not in line with MDPI's format.

TPB and TBL abbreviations appear only once in the abstract and are unnecessary.

Authors’ Response-2:

We have revised the abstract by removing the abbreviations. The terms Triple Bottom Line and Theory of Planned Behavior are now written in full without abbreviations. The changes can be found in lines 19-22 on page 1 as follows:

The framework integrates six foundational theoretical components—Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Stakeholder Theory, Legitimacy Theory, the Theory of Planned Behavior, Triple Bottom Line, and multi-level governance—and is operationalized through six implementation principles:

Reviewer Comment-3: There is no punctuation following the subheadings “Coding Framework Development” and “Thematic Coding and Meta-Synthesis.”

Authors’ Response-3:

We thank the reviewer for this detail-oriented observation. In accordance with the suggestion, we have added colons (:) after both subheadings—“Coding Framework Development:” and “Thematic Coding and Meta-Synthesis:”—to clarify that each heading introduces the explanatory text that follows. This adjustment improves structural clarity and aligns with standard manuscript formatting conventions. The changes can be found on line 325 and line 334 on page 8 as follows:

Coding Framework Development: (line 325)

Thematic Coding and Meta-Synthesis: (line 334)

Reviewer Comment-4:

Suggestion to separate Section 3 into “Results” and “Discussion

Authors’ Response-4:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In response, we have revised the manuscript by separating Section 3 into two distinct sections: 3. Results and 4. Discussion. This revision enhances the clarity and flow of the manuscript while preserving the integrity of the original thematic structure. Each section now serves a dedicated function—Section 3 presents the empirical findings derived from the NVivo-based meta-synthesis, and Section 4 offers theoretical interpretation and critical reflection. We believe this separation strengthens the manuscript’s coherence and better aligns with academic conventions.

Reviewer Comment-5:

Comments on the Quality of English Language — "The English could be improved to more clearly express the research."

Authors’ Response-5:

We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback regarding the quality of the English language. In response, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript for clarity, grammar, and academic tone. Particular attention was paid to sentence structure, terminology consistency, and precision in conveying the research findings and conceptual framework. We believe the current version significantly improves readability and more effectively communicates the study’s contributions

Should further refinement be needed, we remain open to additional suggestions and are committed to ensuring the manuscript meets the highest linguistic and scholarly standards.