Towards Effective Participation: A Stakeholder-Centered Evaluation for Aggregating Spatially Explicit Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised version has comprehensively addressed the points I was concerned about. The authors have done a good job, though I would suggest moving some of the content to the appendix or supplementary materials to keep the manuscript concise.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe results are now clearer and the discussion and the conclusion more complete
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors thank you very much incorporating my comments. As you have incorporated my comments, I am happy with this revised version. Best wishes.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have clearly invested substantial effort, particularly in designing a complex research framework. This dedication is commendable. However, the lack of significant differences between methods in the results suggests a need for more critical reflection on the research design, processes, and case properties. Although I am not an expert in quantitative methodology, it might be beneficial for the authors to consider potential heterogeneity among the informants.
Given that participatory mapping often functions as a form of participatory research, where informants are partners rather than mere subjects, there can be a discrepancy if planners dominate the process and decision-making. Participatory mapping, aimed at action or change, requires a longer timeframe compared to participatory planning, which focuses on information collection. This potential mismatch between the concepts could affect the outcomes. Additionally, the characteristics of participatory research may render a purely quantitative approach less suitable for evaluation. I encourage the authors to delve deeper into a discussion of their chosen methodology.
Regarding the manuscript’s structure, the materials and methods section is disproportionately large compared to the results and discussion sections. Providing more space for the results and discussions could enhance the manuscript’s clarity and impact.
The topic or properties of the cases studied should also be given more attention. Notably, the finding that approximately two-thirds of all polygons were incorrectly generated raises questions about the process. Does this indicate an underlying issue?
Lastly, the manuscript lacks concrete and direct discussion regarding the effectiveness of participation, which is a critical aspect that needs addressing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In addition to the corrections and explanations to be included in the results section, the presentation of the methodology needs to be standardized, and the arguments in the discussion and conclusion need to be restated.
see file commentaires aux auteurs_envoi
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Your work is clearly at an early stage of development in terms of writing and content. There are graphical problems with the figures (small font size, pixelation, etc.). In addition, as mentioned above, the literature review needs to be expanded and the methodology and results need to be further developed as they are rather brief.
Yours sincerely
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
Thank you very much submitting this manuscript entitled “Towards Effective Participation: A Stakeholder-Centered Evaluation for Aggregating Spatially Explicit Data” to “Land” Journal. I read this manuscript with great interest. The content fits with the scope of special issue. The presentation part of this manuscript is good. However, some sections need to be revised to make a smooth flow. This manuscript can be considered for publication after the revision. I have the following suggestions to improve the quality of this manuscript.
11. Abstract: What are the outputs from this study? Please discuss the results as well after the methods.
22. The background section is well written. But can be strengthen adding a few latest references.
33. Under the materials and methods (section 2), I would suggest to discuss about the study area first followed by methods. In addition to this, it will add value if some diagram will be included to discuss about the research method (lines 180-199); discussing about designing an experiment to GIS process/follow up survey. The method section also needs a section number (such as 2.2). Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5,..2.9 can be sub section of 2.2 (2.2.1, 2.2.2, etc).
44. Figure 2 (line 223), right hand side white space, does not look very nice. Suggest to include one more image which illustrates the issue at Carolina Macgillavrylaan (CM) such as safety hazards.
55. Line 398, the section number is wrong. It should be 2.9 (not 3.9).
66. Section 3 Results, it is not clear how the participants were recruited. Does 39 participants are the representative sample? Please clarify.
77. Line 431, there should not be changing paragraph here. Please fix it (typo).
88. Use a bar diagram to illustrate the descriptive statistics. For example, satisfaction with street structure, stakeholders’ involvement on design process, weighted aggregation model etc.
99. Table 1 (rank count) can be easily converted into bar diagram.
110. The discussion section is well written.
111. The conclusions section needs to be expanded. The outputs from this study need to be highlighted in conclusion section.
112. Suggest to include a few more references to support the arguments and statements. I have found that authors have used one reference from 2024 scientific publication. When I simply searched participatory GIS/mapping, it hits approximately 6000 articles and more than 900 articles are published after 2023. So, the background and method sections can be strengthen including a few latest references.
113. There are some Typos which needs to be fixed. Suggest doing a thorough proofreading when revising this manuscript. Please check all the references and make sure that you are consistent on referencing style. I have picked a few Typos.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English language is good. There are some Typos so minor editing of English language will be required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
